> I understand that we can SAY (i.e., it is a philosophical option) that all
> "real" systems are ULTIMATELY complex. This is a particular worldview.
> Saying this ignores the concept of "levels" which I tried unsuccessfully to
> introduce earlier. I take from the lack of comment on that topic, that it
> is difficult to reconcile with the discussion, because they are
> incommensurate views (which may both be valid). So it is this I want to dig
> into a bit if you will indulge me.
>
> What are "levels" as I am employing the concept? I suggested that it is
> analogous or related to "scale" -- that these are similar concepts. Are
> levels "real?" No, in Rosen's (theoretically ultimate) sense, but yes for
> practical purposes (which I will try to define).
>
> Our reference to something "real" in a practical sense, by this reasoning
> MUST involve some kind of model, and therefore MUST involve the concept of
> level or scale, which is inherent in our definition of "things" or
> "entities."
I believe that John touched two very important points, that are:
a) LEVELS OF RESOLUTION - we can model reality through different
levels of resolution - (John talked about scales ... I prefer to say
resolution,
it is exactly the same)
b) KNOWLEDGE OF OBJECTS - in order to understand our surrounding
environment, we frequently model it as a set of objects (John talked about
things or entities - they are the same thing ... I am just using the
terminology
from Computational Semiotics)
The first thing we have to understand about reality is that we can only be
aware of it through our sensors (remember the discussion about Umwelt !).
So, the only kind of information we can get from environment (that is a
synonymous to reality, if you wish) is something like ... colors, temperatures,
contact (that can be pleasuring or paining), sounds, smells, etc. Based
on this information, our mind INVENTS those "entities" we call objects.
For example, you are not able to sense an apple in front of you. You are
able to sense its colour, its smell, its taste, the type of contact it has to
your
fingers, etc. Based on this information, you infer, by abduction, that these
senses are due to SOMETHING, we call an object. This KNOWLEDGE
OF OBJECTS is the essence for understanding the idea of mechanism/
non-mechanism that is being discussed here, I believe.
Once we created such KNOWLEDGE OF OBJECT in our mind, after
sensing the environment, we will try to understand how it works. In order
to do so, we use the reductionistic method of trying to guess OTHER
OBJECTS, in a LOWER LEVEL OF RESOLUTION, that could
explain the behavior of the original object, in a higher level of resolution.
If we succeed in this, then we may say that our original object is
A MECHANISM. But what happens if we try to decompose the
behavior of this original object and we can't acquaint for the creation
of such model ? If I open the Pandora box, and the only thing I can
see is a whole mess ? (Just like the complex TV set given by Don).
Then we have a COMPLEX SYSTEM, a NON-MECHANISTIC
system.
Other thing that maybe is important is the definition of these LEVELS
OF RESOLUTION in terms of FUNCTIONS. I am not talking about
mathematical functions, but to its FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR. For
example, let's talk about a FACTORY. This factory has a FUNCTION
to produce goods. This is the higher level of resolution. We may decompose
this object FACTORY, in lower resolution objects DEPARTMENTS. So,
the factory, from the extreme functional level of resolution, is a mechanistic
system. Then, we try to decompose and understand one of these departments,
e.g. QUALITY CONTROL DEPARTMENT. The function of QUALITY
CONTROL is to assure the quality of goods produced into the factory. But
what happens now ? I can't reduce QUALITY CONTROL anymore ! There
are a bunch of employees, that come and go, some of then working inside the
factory, others outside the factory ... there is no such thing as QUALITY
CONTROL DEPARTMENT PARTS, because their supposed parts are constantly
changing or changing behavior, and we can not reduce it to simpler parts
(in fact, WE MAY, if we consider a temporal picture of the department, but not
the
department as a whole phenomenum in history). So, this is the place where
COMPLEXITY comes to help us ! If we want to fully understand the QUALITY
CONTROL DEPARTMENT, we have to use non-mechanistic methods, in
order to build a model for the department. There are other examples, I guess
.... a footbal team, a nation in the world, the population into a bar, the
traffic, etc.
And the worst part of the story is that in some cases, we may be able to
create
an imperfect mechanistic model for some object, but this model does not
acquaint for the
FULL BEHAVIOR of the object. And this is an indication that MAYBE this
object does not support a mechanistic model, and needs a complex explanation.
Now, some WILD GUESSES (subject to your criticism, of course !)
1) To be called COMPLEX, an OBJECT must not have a FIXED STRUCTURE.
In other words, its structure (in terms of sub-objects) must be VARIABLE.
2) This VARIABLE STRUCTURE is due to a constantly creation and
destruction of objects composing the original object (remembering that
objects are only creation of our mind .. we may see things that could
resemble objects - not necessarily they are !)
3) A MECHANISTIC system always have a FIXED STRUCTURE. Its
objects may vary its atributes, but not the number and type of sub-objects
composing them.
4) Organisms can be FUNCTIONALLY DECOMPOSED only to a certain
level. After this level, what comes is this COMPLEX MESS, where we are
not able to understand why some structures as CELLS, can arise from the
simple interaction of ORGANIC MOLECULES. (Some of you may
correctly note here that there are also those organelles inside a cell, that
would be understood as a PART of it, but I believe that the example
continues valid)
The question now is ... these examples fully attach the problem of
complexity, OR NOT ? If not, what is missing here ? I am not convinced
that they fully attach complexity, in the sense we are talking here, but would
like to hear a little from you !
--
//\\\
(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 \
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+