John's interpretation of my father's view of complexity (below) is
fundamentally the way I believe Dad would describe it, with one caveat:
John K. wrote:
Rosen's view of complexity, as I read it, would make this a nonsensical
question. Complexity doesn't increase or evolve, it is a basic principle of
nature. It would be like asking how light evolved from humble beginings and
increased its speed to what it is today. Complicatedness evolves and
increases, but that is just a measure of the number of relations or
connections in a system, and generally it is reduced to the number of
non-complex relations. So the endless variety that is discussed here is
variety of form only, because that is what is most rigorously observed. I
think to step out of complicatedness you have to consider functional
relationships (as causal). That, of course, introduces other problems; but
I'm not saying its perfect.
The line; "Complexity doesn't increase or evolve, it is a basic principle of
nature." bears closer scrutiny. The word "Complexity", even within my
father's theoretical framework, has different applications. It can be a
noun, it can be an adjective, it can be talked about in specific terms as
each of those and in general terms as each of those... so it's tricky to
leave the reference unspecified in the sentence above. If I'm interpreting
John K's thoughts correctly, I would reword it as follows:
Complexity-- as an innate quality of organization of natural systems--
doesn't evolve or increase from simplicity; it is a basic principle of the
universe.
So, it's something that spontaneously arises. If there is such a thing as a
birth moment for the universe (which I personally doubt) then complexity was
one of the qualities present from birth. Or perhaps the "big bang" was
actually a dimensional shift from a simple universe to a complex one. This
is off the top of my head, but I know that enormous quantities of energy are
held within the organization of a single atom, and an atom is the least
complex system of the complex system organizational dimension... so it
stands to reason that to get from simple organizations to complex
organization, there would have to be a lot of fireworks to say the least.
Complexity, in general terms, has what I tend to describe as different
levels or dimensions which increase with each dimensional jump. I can see
how one might use the word evolution to describe the increase from atomic
structure all the way up to consciousness, but I don't think my father would
agree that it's the same thing that happens with evolution of species.
Atomic organization does not exhibit the functional component in its
organization or its behavior that organisms do. My father felt that function
is what drives evolution and function emerges with life. So whether
complexity evolves in the sense of atoms interacting with one another to
increase the complexity dimension of the new system.... He might agree that
we can't know the answer to that at present. Once the organization is better
understood, it may become apparent how it happens, but it might not. Perhaps
complexity was born in all its many "levels/dimensions" at the same instant.
Size certainly doesn't seem to be important with complex organization, nor
is material form necessary (eg: volitional systems). Human beings seem to
naturally visualize the concept of"development" as progressing from smaller
to larger, or gestation to maturity, or accretion to critical mass, etc. But
that's just the way it "looks" to us. That kind of interpretation is based
on reductionistic thought patterns. It works a LOT of the time, which is why
we still do it, but it doesn't work when you want to understand the
principles at work in making life possible in this universe.
Judith