Re: The value of Rosennean Complexity, applied...

[Judith Rosen <***>]

I think I can see the writing on the wall.

John K., you may have just come up with the "test" for Rosennean Complexity
theory. The kind of models that are going to need a Rosennean approach big
time are weather prediction models. As global warming progresses, the
weather is likely to be the single largest threat to humanity because
changing climate impacts everything from where disease organisms can live on
the planet to drought/flood patterns to where agricultural crops that need a
long time to become established (vinyards, orchards, coconut palms, other
nut trees, etc) will be squeezed and likely decimated by changing climate
trends... Shipping and off-shore oil drilling, among other things, are going
to be affected adversely by rising sea levels, wilder storms, and
fluctuating weather patterns. The insurance industry will be just as
vociferous as all the others, because the claims will reflect the damage
that the weather and the changing climate inflicts. It's pretty scary,
actually.

Even if global warming is headed off somehow, better weather prediction
models are already the holy grail of meteorology. There's a lot of money at
stake. So, what my father's work can do is give a modeler insights into how
the inaccuracies of current models are being generated. Once you know how
these things are being generated you can come at the problem from two
directions to improve your models: 1.) You can eliminate as many of the
aspects of the model that just don't work with complex systems as possible
and devise new aspects to replace them which will work better. 2.) You can
devise additions to the model that can subtract out as many of the
complexity-caused inaccuracies as possible. Of course, you could create a
third option which is to generate new models from scratch with complexity in
mind from the beginning.

In any case, models that are geared toward complex models should (if done
right) have a better track record than models that are designed with a false
supposition of simple systems in mind. The prospect of better, more accurate
weather prediction is so important to so many different sectors of society
world wide that I should think it would be fairly easy to generate grant
funding. Think of all the countries/cities that are going to be adversely
affected by rising sea-level alone! Some countries are going to become
sister cities to Atlantis if we don't figure out what's going on and what to
expect. Many of the richest, most densely populated cities of the world are
near coastlines. Very expensive real estate and some big military bases are
on the coasts here in the US. Funding for this kind of research is sure to
come from somewhere-- if not US government or academia, then another
country's govt. or what-have-you. I should think that private industry would
be another biggie (oil companies, insurance companies, two places I'd
start...) or even private individuals. How many billionaires have beloved
estates on seaside real estate? What's a few hundred million?

Judith
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] The value of Rosennean Complexity, applied...


> Judith, I'll respond more when I have more time. Meanwhile, just to let
> you know, I don't in any way think he was saying modeling is pointless,
> or that others necessarily take it that way. I think  that in many
> minds, since a modeler ends up in the same business regardless of
> philosophy, they don't much care if models are incomplete theoretically,
> because they know they are already incomplete practically, and nobody
> knows what the right way to model is aside from its results. When
> modelers come to work they still try to make a better model, so what
> does Rosen theory change except their philosophy or design, which people
> tend to be very personally attached to, all ideas seeming equal at that
> stage. Now I personally know many ways it helps and I'm using them. But
> if I give a presentation and say my particular approach to modeling is
> based on Rosen's ideas, everybody has to agree to a philosophy in order
> to like my model. If I show them how it produces a better result they
> are instantly in agreement. Most of the time I can't do that, because
> the means of evaluating and comparing models is not well established
> either. Most of them are accepted on faith, so again it boils down to
> whethr or not you believe the philosophy.. I've been pushing for a
> comparison of species models for several years now, and may get some
> funds for it this year. Meanwhile nobody knows if Biomapper is right or
> Species Analyst is right, or someone's agent-based model is right - all
> anyone can do is look at the results. If nobody can tell that you have a
> dumb model, who cares about improving it, even if they agree with the
> theoretical improvements? Now, one way it has come back at us is with
> regard to endangered species and threatened ecosystems. When population
> models don't provide the necessary information to prevent a species
> crash and listing of, say Pacific salmon, on the endangered species
> list, we know the model was too simple. Then everyone comes out of the
> woodwork claiming they have a better model, based on many different
> philosophies. Those closes to the comfortable and predictable domain of
> physics tend to win the faith battles. The problem, as I see it, is that
> we don't understand the design principles, as I believe RR did.
>
> J Kineman
>
> Judith Rosen wrote:
>
> > 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
>
>
> --
> © 2004 John J. Kineman
> all rights reserved