> It seems to me from all the incompleteness arguements, subject-object
> problem, observership (measurement) problem, etc. that we are condemned to
> "know" it only partially from a classical view. Bohr was most clear on this
> point, I think. However, if we learn different ways of "knowing," then
> perhaps we can "know" complexity. The practice of deep meditation is
> claimed to be such a method. I have involved myself in this and am
> convinced that there is a "knowledge" that results. Where it comes from is
> a matter of one's faith, but the value of meditation can and is being
> employed out of the religious context with many practical applications. I
> think it is strongest, however, within a spiritual and artistic context.
> That makes sense in terms of complex systems. Art certainly attempts to
> know and comunicate something about complexity.
I believe that we may have a model of complexity, but if real things reallyare
complex, (i.e. unique), then we can only have an approximation of its
real behavior. This is the same as saying that weather forecast is a chaotic
process, but we will never be able to do precise predictions, because we
are not able to find the chaotic constants embedded in the real system (nature).
We will be allowed to simulate things that would behave like weather,
arbitrating a set of constants, but we would never reach nature's constants.
I make then an analogy to complex systems. Maybe we will be able to
"design" some system performing complexity, but certainly it will not be
a perfect model for a "real" complex system. But the question of knowing if
we REALLY ARE able to UNDERSTAND complexity is very challenging.
What would be mechanism (I apologize for using this word) within human
mind that allows this ... there should be such a mechanism, or to understand
a complex behavior our mind would have to use a complex behavior itself ?
> >These different aspects in which we can "see" a complex system are
> > NECESSARILY INFINITE ?
>
> My views on this are guesses based on analogy with quantum behavior (ala
> Penrose), which certainly is a complex system (although not necessarily the
> only one, which is one of the current debates). From this perspective, I
> don't think the possible outcomes have to be infinite.
Hmmm ... this contradicts what Don have said ... I would stay with Don here
...but
your suggestion of finitude with uncertainty is provoking ... do you really
believe in which something can be uncertain ? Or uncertainty is only a
lack of information by a human person ?
> They are finite but
> fundamentally uncertain. In other words, a given possibility doesn't exist
> classically until it is observed. The qualifier "classically" in that
> sentence is what leads to non-computability. So even though the possible
> outcomes may be finite, they cannot be predicted except in a probabalistic
> way. For example, spin state is either up or down -- two possibilities. But
> it behaves in a complex way in relationship to other observables (meaning
> classical observations). Define one finite aspect and another finite aspect
> becomes uncertain. It is thus not the number of possibilities that is
> involved, but how they are defined.
I am not an expert on Quantum Mechanics, but I still believe that this
notionthat
something happens only after it is observed (the Schroedinger's cat quest) is
only an approximate model to something that would be intrinsecally
deterministic,
though still not fully understood. I had a serious difficulty in conceiving that
something
can be really RANDOM. I think that randomicity is only a model for something
that
is still unknown, but DETERMINISTIC ! And this determinism could be originated,
e.g. from complexity. Then, randomicity would be only a model for complexity,
and
as a model, just an approximation. I don't buy the idea that you may DEFINE
complexity through randomicity in quantum events.
> For better or worse, my approach has been to find an analogue to
> non-classical behavior in general in quantum behavior, and associate that
> with complexity. Others object to this approach, but I havn't been able to
> determine why. I think you are essentially correct to say that each large
> complex system, i.e., once it involves many components, is unique -- like
> organisms and ecosystems. We could not, for example, create a complex
> computer clone of Don Mikulecky or Robert Rosen. We're simply going to have
> to read the books.
In my point of view we are neither able to build a simple bacteria from
scratch.From scratch I mean, getting attoms of C, H, O and N and building
organic
molecules
in order to compose a cell. And not because we don't have artifacts for
manipulating
molecules, but because synthesizing an organism would be more than just playing
with a chemical toolset and building a chemical mechanism. We still don't have
the
conceptual tools for dealing with the complex behavior that we would demand in
order to build such organism.
> To my thinking (and I belive Penrose), no. Infinite complication does not
> produce complexity unless it involves a correlated state of matter that can
> behave non-deterministically.
If it is true, then I think that I still didn't get all of what complexity is
...
> >6) Do purelly mechanistic system really exist ? It seems to me that EVERY
> real
> >system that is materially implemented is not a mechanistic system anymore,
> but a
> >TRUE COMPLEX SYSTEM. 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.
>
> I do not agree entirely with this view, for the following reason. It is
> ultimately not possible to completely separate models of reality from
> reality. It is nonsense to speak of a reality that cannot be perceived by
> any means. Perceptions always involves a model.
The question is not that it can not be perceived ... if a complex system
hasinfinite different views, I may be able to perceive each one of them, but to
perceive all of them would take an infinite time !
> To clarify the meaning of this statement, let me add that our current
> psycho-physical evolved form is the result of a model and itself implies a
> particular model viewpoint.
I don't agree with this ! I don't think that we were created from a model,but
that
we evolved by means of natural evolution. In natural evolution,
there is no model a priori. You simply generate the systems, and let those
that work to survive. So, there is no model of development here. There
was no "a priori" knowledge for what it was going to reach after evolution.
> We can only speak of the reality we interact
> with. Our particular form dictates how this reality will appear and how it
> seems structured. Beyond that we can only speculate. So in a sense, when we
> develop the best scientific model we can, we ARE describing reality, while
> at the same time we know that reality is more. This is a Platonic view, I'm
> sure.
With this, I agree !
> What it means in regard to your question is that there ARE, for all
> practical purposes, mechanistic simple systems. Your lawn chair is one of
> them. So is your computer. But at a very deep level (i.e., quantum level)
> the lawn chair is complex. The question is what level are you interacting
> with it? To our perspective, nature has levels. In reality, levels are
> subjective. They're real to us, and that can't be ignored. So I say a rock
> is a simple system, because you and I know what we mean by a rock and that
> model of a rock has a physical empirical relationship with all the evidence
> we can acquire. But if we look only at quantum particles, you won't find a
> rock. And if you look at people, or ecosystems, you also won't find a rock.
> Why? I think it is because the phenomena that is different and exhibited at
> the quantum level (of perception) has been captured in very special
> physical structures and magnified, then incorporated into the mechanical
> system through evolution.
Your argumentation comes from the understanding that something only existsafter
we
interact with them. Then you may talk about different levels of nature.
I am not to sympatetic to this idea. I agree that we may "interfere" with nature
when we interact with it, but it doesn't turn something that is complex into
something that is mechanistic. The mechanization of our daily life artifacts is
only an illusion of our thought. It is only an "approximation" of its real
complex
behavior. Usually good approximations, that allows us to predict (with some
margin of error) how it will going to behave. So, there is not different levels
of reality, but different levels of perception of reality. The chair is the
same
for
everybody. The creation of a mechanistic model for it into an interpreter's mind
is what can happens. The chair is intrinsecally a complex system, despite we
create a mechanistic model for explaining it, that works until some complex
behavior appears into scene.
> Now, apparently Rosen wouldn't describe it this way, so I'm looking into
> Rosen's description. But I think mine is the practical side of it -- the
> way it must appear to us, and also the way we need to look at it if we want
> to build something. Rosen's view may turn out to be more comprehensive and
> universally correct, but less amenable to initial construction. I don't
> think we can claim that all structures that we observe exhibit complex
> system behavior. That would be silly.
The question is not that it does not exhibit complex behavior, but if we areable
to perceive this complex behavior ! Sometimes the effect of complexity
is to small to be detected by our perceptive mechanisms.
> Yes, it is the same question, and I think the same answer. How well can you
> say you understand another human being at the psychological level? We can
> only look and respect the complexity. Yet in contemplative practice people
> routinely experience much closer connections and "understandings." To "see"
> complexity, we have to participate experientially, not observationally.
> This is the "third eye."
I am not totally against to these ideas, but I will keep them into the
department
ofthose things that we still don't know too much in order to make an opinion.
Thanks for you opinions too, John. I appreciate to put into debate these
ideas that come from quantum mechanics, uncertainty principle and
randomicity, despite not having a complete agreement on its adequacy
for explaining complexity and intelligence. I preview still a lot of discussion
regarding this theme.
Best regards,
Ricardo
--
//\\\
(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 \
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+