Ricardo Ribeiro Gudwin wrote:
> I have some important (well, ... , even to me) questions regarding building
> systems ala Rosen.
>
> 1) Are we ABLE TO fully understand a complex system ? This is the
> same as saying that we may find a complete analog for a complex systems that
> can be represented in some way inside our brains. Or either in other words ..
> are we able to build a "conceptual model" for a complex system ? Or are we
> condemned to know it only partially ?
If we are using rosen's definition, we can only know it partially.....
>
>
> 2) As I could understand from past messages and from Rosen's interview,
> a complex system is a system where, depending on the observation we do
> on it, it shows a different perspective. It should be compared to a diamond
> with an infinite number of faces. And this is what concerns me. These
different
> aspects in which we can "see" a complex system are NECESSARILY INFINITE ? If
> there
> is a finite (it may be huge, but finite) only number of different
perspectives,
> then
>
> we could acquaint for a mechanistic implementation of it. So it seems that
> necessarily
> it have to be infinite. Then, how to guarantee that we can find a perfect
analog
> for
>
> a given complex system ? Or in other words ... are each complex system unique
?
> If yes, and if it is not possible to make a perfect analog of it, then
> necessarily
> it is
> really impossible to know it in its entirety !
>
Rosen believes that an infinite number of formal descriptions are needed...the
uniqueness is an important point...since the material aspects do not map 1:1
into
the functional aspects, each will be unique......a class of material
realizations
may fit all of our limited knowledge about the system....
> 3) Talking about emergence. Don said that others used emergence to explain
parts
> of complex systems as if they were mechanistic systems. But we may have the
> phenomenum of emergence in purely mechanistic systems where two simple
> systems coupled to each other form a complicated systems (just to make a
> difference from "complex" system, as Rosen did), exibiting a behavior that can
> not be seen by each simple system in particular. It is a true case of
emergence
> of
> a behavior, dictated by the cooperation of the two simple systems. The
question
> here is ... if we have an INFINITE number of cooperating mechanistic systems,
> do we reach a complex system ?
emergence is the result of error in our formal description...once we realize the
limitations of our formal descriptions, emergence becomes less
important.......and
as I interpret the question, ....an infinite number of formal descriptions will
not
even capture the entire complex system (Goedel).....you envision an infinite
number
of mechanisms giving something other than a mechanism, but I think that would
not be
the case...just an infinitely complicated mechanism.....and yes, emergence
(error)
might come with that
>
>
> 4) Other question comes from the discipline of Artificial Life, as we know it
> today.
>
> Regarding complex systems, are all the research in Artificial Life (most
> backgrounded
> by computer simulation) only rubish ?
no, I think they are fascinatingly complicated mechanisms
> Does it have NOTHING to do with REAL life
> ?
> Or is there SOMETHING in life that IS mechanistic, which is captured by the
> current
> studies on Artificial Life ?
>
they are, in the sense of the modeling relation, often nice METAPHORS for living
things....realize that among the troubles with computer simulation is the mix up
between the computer's hardware and software and the counterparts in the thing
being
simulated. unless one is simulating a Turing machine, this is all awry! there
are
many more, equally fundamental problems with the causalities.
> 5) Can we understand complexity by induction ? We start with simple
mechanistic
> systems,
> build complicated systems with the interaction of them, over and over
> complicating
> the system and then, ... , by induction (this incredible human artifact for
> understanding the
> infinite) we reach a complex system ? (I'm thinking here in a mental model for
a
> complex
> system)
no they form disjoint categories...really mutually exlusive.....as soon as you
reduce a formal description of a system to a mechanism you loose semantics which
you
can not recapture
>
>
> 6) Do purelly mechanistic system really exist ?
no they are the creation of mechanistic/reductionist science, especially
physics
which is so special as to only study the mechanistic aspects of nature
> It seems to me that EVERY real
> system that is materially implemented is not a mechanistic system anymore, but
a
> TRUE COMPLEX SYSTEM.
As does Rosen
> It leads to the question that we look to this complex
> system, but what we see is a mechanistic system So, true mechanistic system
do
> exist only in our thoughts. Only models are mechanistic. And this provokes the
> following
> question: Are we able to have thoughts that are NOT of mechanistic systems ?
yes...wwe can entertain notions of non-computable qualities which are
complex.....Rosen's best illustration is the number system!!!!
> If
> we
> observe well, we will see that it is exactly the question 1) above: are we
able
> to
> understand, conceptualize, model a true complex system ? Or are we able only
to
> see a system and say ... well, THIS IS a complex system, without understanding
> it
> at all ?
we are more able to "understand" on some level than predict or control.....
>
>
> I have other questions too, but I will put only these as a start ... depending
> on
> the
> answers, I will continue with the others ...
> --
> //\\\
> (o o)
> +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-oOO--(_)--OOo-=-=-+
> \ Prof. Ricardo Ribeiro Gudwin /
> / Intelligent Systems Development Group \
> \ DCA - FEEC - UNICAMP | INTERNET /
> / Caixa Postal 6101 | gudwin@dca.fee.unicamp.br \
> \ 13081-970 Campinas, SP | gudwin@fee.unicamp.br /
> / BRAZIL | gudwin@correionet.com.br \
> +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
> \ URL: http://www.dca.fee.unicamp.br/~gudwin/ /
> / Telephones: +55 (19) 788-3819 DCA/Unicamp (University) \
> \ +55 (19) 254-0184 Residencia (Home) /
> / FAX: +55 (19) 289-1395 \
> +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
wow!
heartfelt thanks!
You got to the meat of a lot of issues. I think I have given you the kind of
answers Rosen would have , but I am far more limited in my understanding. Keep
asking!
respectfully,
Don