These examples seem to imply an either/or
> > situation, not different levels of complex interaction (Norm's "and"), but
> > the potential for gradients (and "and") seems evident. "Small talk" would
> > be less complex (or complicated) than a more considered conversation, a
> > highly bureaucratic and rule-oriented society would be less complex than an
> > innovative one, etc. I don't think any of this would contradict Rosen's
> > view, because it recognizes different levels of interactional complexity
> > AND ultimate complexity.
This "either/or" aspect of the modeling relation is something I've been
wondering about too as I've been sanding and varnishing and otherwise
catching up with my boat maintenance chores. This is what led me to
think in terms of self organizing systems rather than complex systems as
the focus of getting our formal models to commute. So I'm beginning to
think that Rosen's modeling relation notions are really useful in
discerning and gaining a deeper understanding of all kinds of self
organizing processes and systems.
That's one of the main reasons why I suggested that perhaps we ought to
think about abandoning the term "complex systems." By the way, we now
have three suggested replacement names: John suggested "participatory
systems," Dan suggested "Chaordic systems" and I suggested "synergic
systems."
By focusing on the modeling relations of self organizing systems we
automatically then need to think about what we mean by "self"
organizing. From my personal subjective point of view, anything is self
organizing if I personally don't need to participate in its organizing.
need human beings may be self organizing. Or some may say that self
organizing means that God did not directly participate in its organizing
processes. Thus creationists might argue that self organizing is just
an illusion we create to help our selves ignore the existence of God.
My own thoughts are that if we take John's four examples and consider
the extent of their self organizing qualities rather than their
complexity, we gain a better understanding of just how effective the
modeling relation is in helping us to understand a variety of systems.
I think this also allows us to easily incorporate many qualitative
differences as well as gradients and heirarchies without getting caught
up in the subjective/objective confusions. I would like to hear what
others think about all this because in some ways this is a meaniful
change in some aspects of Rosen's ideas.
Norm