Re: Are car engines complex?

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

Judith,

Thanks for expanding and clarifying those ideas. :)

Speaking of definitions, I think that, commonsensically, when one refers to
"car engine", one is indeed talking about that simple system that you have
listed in your levels (and that your father agreed with), as opposed to
referring to it as a mass of metal subject to atomic-level description.
Although the latter is possible to do, but we would just not ordinarily
label such a system a "car engine".

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Judith
> Rosen
> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 10:54 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Are car engines complex?
>
>
> This is one of the issues that caused the mushroom cloud on the
> old list and
> was the impetus for this new list to be brought into being. It was
> precipitated by my posting of a preliminary list of "Levels of Rosennean
> Complexity" that I had written some years ago under my father's
> tutelage as
> part of a manuscript that I was writing, essentially "translating" my
> father's theoretical ideas into plain English. On the previous list, issue
> was taken with the fact that, in this set of categories, I said that there
> are "simple" systems in the material world, and my father had given this
> list his OK. This was in contradiction with the understanding of
> other list
> members regarding my father's idea of complexity and the material world
> (specifically the other point of view was that my father was saying that
> simple systems could only exist in formalisms, not in the
> material world. I
> am equally certain that my father did not mean that at all.)-- that's the
> background for this very interesting set of thoughts by Tim.
> Incidentally, I
> may as well re-post that list, for the members here who were not
> present for
> the tempest it caused elsewhere.
>
> There was one point in particular  that is a constant source of confusion
> for people who are trying to understand Rosennean concepts and Tim managed
> to put his finger right on it, but it needs to be really nailed down. In
> Tim's discussion, he speaks of  the redefinition of a car engine (after it
> is found to be a "simple system") and the fact that, when you do
> that, Tim's
> observation that  the simplicity is lost.
>
> The reason this happens, according to my father's work, is because if you
> reduce the car engine any further than the coherent system that makes it
> what it is (ie: makes it behave as a car engine) you are not dealing with
> the "car engine system" anymore. You have progressed "backwards"
> to other,
> underlying systems that may have little to do with the original one's
> behavior. This is precisely why a reductionist approach is not
> the best way
> to study the organization of most systems in general and what he called
> "complex systems" in particular. With a simple system like a car
> engine, you
> can take it apart-- although only to a certain threshold of
> deconstruction--
> and put it back together and have it run exactly as before. You can also
> build one, from the ground up, using the "instructions" (set of
> models) and
> have it work identically to the original.  Its organization is limited to
> computable parts and computable relationships between the parts. But a
> complex system (be it an atom or an organism) is not able to be
> taken apart
> and reassembled any time you want to do so. His belief about the
> reasons for
> this became his definition of complexity. It's not that we still
> don't have
> the correct technology to do it "right". Rather, it is because,
> in his view,
> there are aspects to any complex system that are entirely dependent on the
> way the system is organised. These aspects only exist "in time". You can't
> stop the system, (fractionate the atom, kill the organism, etc) which is
> essentially taking it "out of time", and expect to "see" these aspects of
> the system anymore. They collapse, the system is irretrievably
> deformed, and
> no longer exists as what it once was. To study the detritus left over is a
> waste of brain energy if what you want to learn about is why the original
> system behaved the way it did.  His whole point was that these systems
> cannot be investigated using the same techniques that are used to
> calculate
> solar system movements or design a bigger bridge or build a
> better microwave
> oven. Or a car engine. That's why he says in his work, over and over, that
> to understand these systems, you have to study the organization
> and not the
> pieces. With a car engine, you can reduce the system to its parts and
> understand it, but if you reduce any further, you are no longer
> studying the
> car engine. This is why he felt that reductionist approaches were
> limited in
> (although not devoid of) value and frankly wrong when applied beyond their
> limited scope. It is also why quantum physics is not helpful in biology--
> the concept of a "state" that is essential in quantum analysis is, again,
> taking the system "out of time" and this is not possible with complex
> systems in my father's theoretical framework.
>
> However, I stand by my assertion that, in my father's definition of the
> universe, car engines are indeed simple systems that exist in the material
> world. I never said he was right (although I tend to believe he was, and
> yes, I am biased!) but I am saying that this is what he believed.
>
> Judith
> Website address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com/