|
Dear Tim, you wrote (among lots of appreciable
things):
"...science where complex systems become
describable in any formal way."
To comprehend (=less than immediately accept)
this, I need
a new identification for
'science', maybe 'complex systems',
further on 'describable' and
of course 'formal'.
IMO (as included in the brainwashing I received
in college)
formal means the
definite concepts (mostly quantized upon other quantized concepts)
WITHIN the boundaries of the model drawn for
observation/studying. I call that a nice case of reductionist science. However,
science can also be identified differently.
I was scolded by Russell Standish for my improper
ways of
describing things 'qualitatively' rather than in
math formats. My argument was: a description in equational form cuts off all
connotations (alterations of concepts) that fall beyond the chosen model's
boindary-conditions. He then said that 'modern ways of math' describe
differently, but I could get no answer how a math-type thinking can handle
unlimited variables and unlimited factors, scales, if we transcend all
boundaries (as in 'wholeness').
My conclusion: 'science where complex systems become describable in any
formal way.' leads into reductionism. The good old topical cuts and quantized
concepts.
With "complex systems" I have more
trouble:
should I resort with 'the rest of the world'
(complicated), or take a rosennean or Ian Smithian complexity (reaching into
totality), or the one I held till lately when I abandoned the use of this
_expression_ (for wholeness)?
I don't care for an audience of academics of
reductionist science, whether they CAN (or want to) follow, I don't compromise
for the sake of being accepted by the "other" side of the moon. (I mean: the
dark side redux thinkers).
No remarks on the rest of your post
John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:18
PM
Subject: Re: Describing Rosennean
Complexity
Judith wrote
(excerpted from below):
My father was looking for the
"truth" about biological systems, living systems. But in order to find it, he
needed to go back and reformulate the foundations of science
itself.
I suppose I
should have stipulated that by "describe" in my remarks to Kevin that I was
thinking in terms of descriptions utilizing formalisms, which I would
imagine would make for a more forceful argument in the realm of
academic philosophy. As evident in the quote above, the kind of "larger
universe" based on a reformulation of the foundations of science itself is
difficult to describe in even moderately formal terms. Yet, it
is largely within that reformulated framework of science where complex systems
become describable in any formal way.
So, to
prepare the common groundwork to discuss complex systems in any formal way
with someone else, one must first present essentially an abbreviated version
of the arguments in Life Itself that demonstrate the
flaws and inadequacies of the current foundations and formalisms, and what
would be an adequately enhanced framework for discourse on complex systems. It
is no small feat to make such a presentation (witness Life
Itself), much less to convince the other person of its
necessity.
Regards,
Tim
Tim Gwinn wrote:
But...but....this is something of a catch-22:
one of Rosen's important ideas, or results, is that the current
universe of discourse is too limited to include Rosennean complex systems.
To attempt to cast his ideas in this limited framework is
difficult insofar as from within that framework complex systems do not
appear.
This is something I find a difficulty: in
order to describe Rosennean complexity to someone it is often necessary
to first describe the larger universe that contains these complex
systems, and the latter is no less difficult to present than the
former. Any insights on this would be greatly
appreciated.
A lot of non-scientific people have asked me what
"Rosennean Complexity" is and my answer is generally phrased as
follows:
A complex system, as my father defined one, is a system
where the physical parts that the system is made of are only a
fraction of the aspects that go into making that system what it is
(be it an atom or an ecosystem). In a complex system, there are
relationships that exist between the physical parts and those relationships
are every bit as crucial to the system as the physical parts, themselves,
are. In living organisms, which are extremely complex systems (according to
the Rosennean definitions), the relationships even have relationships
between and amongst themselves. All of these relationships are
disregarded by reductionist approaches to biology, because the
relationships are not physical things in the sense of "tangible" or
material reality. However, to disregard them is to make these systems
incomprehensible to science.
Since reductionistic approaches cannot or will not even
address the aspects of complex systems that make them what they are, there
needs to be new ways of addressing these systems that are equally rigorous
in scientific terms, if not in reductionist terms. The direction my father
suggested was to study the organization of the systems, rather than what the
systems are physically made out of. Study the way the material parts are
organized, study the relationships, study the behavior that is common to
complexity, and you will have a much better chance of understanding the
universe. Why the universe? Because, what he found out was that the universe
is full of complexity. Simple systems are actually quite rare, by
comparison.
My father was looking for the "truth" about biological
systems, living systems. But in order to find it, he needed to go back and
reformulate the foundations of science itself. In the process, he was
astonished to discover that the kinds of simple (non-complex) systems
that contemporary physics addresses are a minority in the universe.
Complex systems, including the atom, are the majority. Therefore, biology is
positioned to teach us things about physics, but physics is too limited in
it's purview at the present time to teach us anything more about why living
things are alive. In other words, contemporary physics is of limited value
in addressing biological questions. Those opinions of his were
misinterpreted by a lot of people as an attack on physics. That was hardly
the case. What he was saying is that physics in its present state of
development as a science is incomplete and that the artificial boundaries
between disciplines are a hindrance to deeper understanding of the world
around us. Biology and physics are all part of the larger area called
science, as is mathematics. It's all connected, therefore, any boundary
compartmentalizing it is an unnatural human construct and
is counterproductive to real learning or understanding.
The reason Rosennean Complexity is so useful is because
complex systems form spontaneously out of everything from matter to human
interactions with other humans (volitional systems, social systems). The
things you learn about the organization of biological complex
systems will teach you about complex systems in general. The behavior of
complex systems is a natural law and holds true, regardless of what the
system is made out of. This is what fuels my conclusion that Rosennean
Complexity is the elusive "Theory of Everything" that unifies all of
science. Rosennean Complexity unifies the entire gamut of human inquiry
about the universe, about human consciousness, about atomic structure, about
evolution... This is why I'm not willing to let the ideas languish in
obscurity while I have breath in my body. It's important to make these
things accessible.
Judith
|