|
Hi Folks,
I was having a discussion via email with someone on the subject
of-- What do you do when Rosennean Complexity is saying that complex systems
are non-computable, that all models of them are going to be incomplete, and yet
your job is to make models of complex systems?
Apparently, some of the hostility to my father's theoretical work
is due to a perception that he was saying it's a waste of time to even try to
model these systems. But he didn't feel that way, AT ALL. Quite the contrary! If
I can lay that misconception to rest, I will be very happy.
Not only did Robert Rosen believe that modeling is useful, he made
extensive use of it himself. He believed it is the only way to deal with many,
many different aspects of science and industry. His contention was that we need
to know how the accuracy of models is affected by the truth (i.e.; Complexity)
and ameliorate the disconnect-- in as many ways as we can invent, but
he suggested several ways in his books and papers. The upshot of this change in
approach, he believed, will be better models and better results.
In other words, he was attempting to prove that reductionism won't
teach us what life is in the scientific sense, but that doesn't mean a
reductionist approach is bad. It's only bad if one presumes that it's
the ONLY approach and that everything that is outside the bounds of what
you can do reductionistically is unimportant. That's all he was saying.
How many subscribers on the list have been under the misapprehension that my
father was suggesting that modeling a complex system is pointless? (I sure hope
it wasn't very many-- My God! If the hostility to my father's work is based on
this....)
What he was trying to point out is that Complex systems pose
certain built in difficulties when it comes to modeling. He explained why and
described the kinds of "deformities" or inaccuracies that ensue in the
modeled version compared to the real system. His belief was that if you take
these characteristics (of complex systems) into account when building your
model, you can adjust for some or most; you can do things within the modeling
process itself to make your model work far more accurately than one
that presupposes a false premise of simplicity (which is what all
reductionism has at its core).
There are some areas of science that will not be able to use a
reductionist approach very much, if at all, and studying complexity
itself is one of those. Studying the organization of complex systems (as
opposed to the material parts) will require some new thinking. Otherwise, the
only change in applied science that my father was advocating is a change in
mindset, with creativity applied to the problem that lots of people in
science are completely unaware they have. His work was in the foundations of
science, albeit he never set out to do that. His intention was to be a
biologist, only. It was as he realized that the tools in the tool box were
inadequate for some unknown reason that he set out to reimagine the foundations
of science through history.
Judith
|