----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 8:10
PM
Subject: Re: Describing Rosennean
Complexity
Hi
JohnM,
See
interposed.
Regards,
Tim
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').
First,
in my view prosaic description (as opposed to a formal model) does not
guarantee a holistic treatment of a system, nor does it in any way guarantee
that various aspects of the system are not "cut" by the words being used.
Secondly, it sounds to me like there is a
presupposition in your remarks that either one describes a system
prosaically or one describes it via a single formal
model. But that is a bit of a straw man, since systems describable by a
single largest formal model are simple systems, not the complex ones we want
to talk about. By contrast, complex systems require
multiple formal models - in fact, they would require an infinite number of
simple models. Complex systems also have noncomputable models, such as
the graphical (M,R)-system model for organisms, a non-quantitative
relational model which describes holistic aspects of that system.
Any
single model taken by itself clearly "cuts" off alot of the system from the
description. But, so would attempting to use a single prosaic
phrase.
So, I do
not see formal vs. prosaic as equalling reductionistic vs
holistic.
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
Rosennean complexity. That's why we're all here!
:)
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