Re: ecological complexity
Norman K. McPhail (norm@SOCAL.WANET.COM)
Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:20:16 -0700
Don Mikulecky wrote:
>
> Don Mikulecky replies:
>
> Norman K. McPhail wrote:
>
> > Norm McPhail tries to correct a mistake. So far this year, this is the
> > sixth one he has had to publically admit to:
> > >
> > > Don:
> > >
> > > I want to make a simple suggestion. For me, it is too complicated to
> > > figure out the differences between complex, complexity theory and
> > > complications etc. So my first suggestion is that we abandon any
> > > attempt to use the words "complex system." This would let complexity
> > > theory collapse of its own weight.
> > >
> > > Next, I think we ought to use another term for the notion that it takes
> > > at least two formal self referencing systems to generate a self
> > > organizing system.
> >
> > After rereading the above sentence this morning, I noticed that it
> > suffers from some common mistakes. So to make it more in sync with
> > Don's and Rosen's ideas I have rewritten it as follows:
> >
> > 'Next, I think we ought to use another term for the notion that it takes
> > at least two formal self referencing system models to help us understand
> > a natural self organizing system.'
> >
> > Don, please feel free to rewrite this again if there are still some
> > errors in it.
>
> Thanks for the offer, but I must have missed the beginning of this. The
> language is VERY confusing to me. My thinking comes from Rosen who finds
> self reference (complexity) in everything real. He finds that any syntactic
> formal system fails to capture this. The thing necessary to try to find a
> formalism which captures the complexity of real systems is to go beyond
> syntax and add the correct semantics....here is where issues like self
> reference and self organization get taken up. Does this make sense?
Don:
What you say above makes sense and is exactly my understanding of the
modeling relation as you describe it. I too think there is a self
referencing quality in most everything real. A syntactic formal system
in my terms equates to an "or" logic based system. And I agree that any
such a system fails to capture this self referencing quality.
I also agree that only semantic or quality based modeling can deal with
the real systems. Both self reference and self organizing are quality
based models in my mind. But to understand the self organizing
processes, I think we must use at least two self referencing quality
based system models. Does this make sense?
Norm
> >
> >
> > The Santa Fe boys thought that critical mass was a
> > > good metaphor, but that one led to the edge of chaos and mass
> > > confusion.
> > >
> > > Perhaps we ought to have an informal naming contest. If I were a judge
> > > of this contest, I would be looking for a simple one or two syllable
> > > word that captures the synergy of self organizing processes.
> > >
> > > "Synergic system" would be my nomination for this naming contest.
> > >
> > > Norm
>
> Don