Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> I don't know about the others on this list, but every time we stir up
> another corner of this stuff, it helps me to get a better understanding
> of the beast. Still, I agree with your comment below that the most
> important thing we can do is keep an open mind and recognize how little
> we can actually know about our selves, each other and our surroundings.
>
> > > > Most all of nature as i know it is self organizing. Shake up oil and
> > > > water...they
> > > > separate....put a drop of dye in the water..it spreads out. is this
self
> > > > organization or not? If not why not?
> > > > respectfully,
> > > > Don
> > >
> > > I think it is a form a self organizing and your point is well taken.
> > > Still, how would you go about dealing with the gradients and qualities
> > > of self organizing processes?
> >
> > the one case is a classic picture of diffusion..the other is also well
> > known....here's a good example of semantics being carried with the
complexity
> > of the situation.....we were taught that these were "merely" diffusion and
oil
> > and water don't mix. We built a surrogate world with physics which saw most
> > things as governed by simple laws like that for diffusion. Now we get bold
> and
> > open our eyes and see the real world for what it is....most things, if not
> all,
> > are "self-organizing" and this becomes the norm rather than a novelty. this
> is
> > equivalent to changing the formal system with which we make inferences about
> > the natural world....and also being open to further changes and even more
> > radical formalisms as needed. In short...there has to be more than one
> > way...many ways....each time we think we have "the" way..we stop
progressing.
> > the essence of this is to face the self-referencial quality of the modeling
> > relation we seek up front...each step closer will dictacte another change
and
> > that in turn another....freeze it and the model becomes a snapshot again. I
> > know that is vague, but it is what I see happening.
>
> You do have a way with words Don.
Thank you and as many who write..I don't feel like it is me writing any longer!
I
struggled with this for a long time and seem to have stepped on many toes with
earlier attemps. Something is different now and I don't think I can take credit
for
it. for one thing, you and others seem to be listening. Second, there HAS to
be a
widespread frustration with the majority of what is being done under the rubric
of
"complexity research". And finally, as in every revolution, this thing has its
own
momentum!
> I couldn't agree more. I wonder how
> many others around the world have a sense of these changes?
> >
> > > Is it semantically ok just to drop the
> > > self organizing quality out of the equation and reduce the differences
> > > to comparative complexity? Or do we need both the quality of self
> > > organizing and the quantity of complexity in the process to benefit from
> > > the modeling relation?
> > >
> > > Norm
> >
> > the essence of complexity is non-computable and not algorithmic......hence
if
> > we purge that essence we get simple mechanism back.
>
> I still can't help wonder if it is what you call "the essence of
> complexity" that is non-computable and not algorithmic. And I still
> think this non computable aspect is more related to the self organizing
> processes. Could our fixation on complexity be one of those snap shots
> you refer to above? I don't mind the vagueness, I just have a sense
> that this word throws us off trail of the open ended uncertain systems
> we are trying to deal with.
>
> I also think this issue is related to some of the things John said in
> his last post. He said that there is no such thing as a grand unified
> theory.
Yes....and there probably never will be....as we learn to see we will need more
and
more ways to deal with what we see....reduction is no longer an option
> I agree and I'm struggling to articulate why the notion of
> complexity seems less useful than some other term that we might use in
> its place. I'll think about it some more and see what I can come up
> with.
It has to be free of "baggage"...that will be hard!
>
>
> Don, do you have any specific comments on the three suggested terms that
> have been mentioned so far? i.e. Participatory, synergic or chaordic
> systems? Do you have any other ideas for a term that might work better?
I , for one, never saw chaordic before and therefore it carries no baggage for
me.
>
>
> ......the essence of a
> > functional component in a complex system is that it has no definition out of
> > context.....it defines the whole as the whole defines it...self refernce and
> > context dependence everywhere....any attempt to "clean that up" results in a
> > reduction and a loss of complexity...physics is too good at that to try to
> > compete with it.
> > respectfully,
> > Don
again
Don