Re: Comparing Rosennean Complexity

[John Kineman <***>]

Yes, this seems likely, that the problem was in believing that in fact
there is such a threshold. If one presumes that it is possible to (a) have
a simple system, and (b) transition from a simple system to a complex one,
then the question of a threshold where this can be said to have occurred
comes up. However, if (a) there are no truly simple natural systems, just
conceptual models that are simple and that can make a complex system act
simple, then (b) one does not in fact transition from simple to complex,
one degenerates a complex system to a simple one, perhaps in degrees. At
what threshold would we then say it is no longer complex?? I believe there
are passages in RR's writings (Tim can probably recall them) where he says
even though a complex system may behave like a simple one, it always
retains the possibility of changing that behavior, and hence remains
complex. Part of complexity is not being able to predict behavior, so how
long a simple system will stay simple is part of that unpredictability,
hence complexity. I think some of this concept was articulated by Don M.
rather well, and regardless of other matters in his interpretations I think
this is one thing he got right. But Judith can perhaps comment further on that.

So, Howard, please don't get the idea that I'm on a campaign here against
the Von Neumann view, but I think there is a legitimate question as to
whether the assumptions involved in that view are the right ones for
understanding life.



JJK

At 04:30 PM 3/22/04 -0500, you wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Judith
> > Rosen
> > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:57 PM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Comparing Rosennean Complexity
> >
> >
> --snip--
> >
> > He didn't like the term "threshold" though, which strikes me as being kind
> > of funny. He could use a term like "internal predictive model" but eschew
> > the term "threshold"-- why? Because "threshold" suggested that
> > you could get
> > there from simplicity, just by adding more complicatedness. But what else
> > would you call a boundary that, once crossed over, has a whole
> > new world on
> > the other side? If threshold, as a term, connotes a reductionistic or
> > mechanistic idea, how does "internal predictive model" not do the same?
> > (That's the kind of thing I would ask him. Anybody game to fill
> > in?) Anyway,
> > I have found the word threshold to be necessary when discussing
> > my father's
> > ideas in plain English.
> >
> > The reason I wouldn't say there is a threshold between simple systems and
> > complex systems is that, in my father's theoretical framework, there is no
> > way to cross over from simplicity. In order to generate a complex
> > system one
> > would have to start with complex organization. No amount of complicated
> > simplicity, added together, is going to yield a complex system. From his
> > vantage point, he said von Neumann was saying the opposite of this.
> >
> > Judith
>
> I would think he disliked 'threshold' because etymologically it is related
> to "worn away" or "rubbed away", so that 'threshold' would insinuate
> something that could be worn away or exceeded by enough effort. But, as you
> also say, no amount of accretion of predicative or simple structures will
> exhaust or exceed the limits of the predicative realm. I think also,
> 'threshold' might insinuate that everything else about the predicative
> universe of discourse can remain the same even after crossing the
> 'threshold'. But, going from simple to complex is more like switching from a
> smaller universe to a larger universe that has different rules, such as
> fewer restrictions on organization. I don't know what word might be
> appropriate to indicate the transition boundary, since it is a transition
> between very unlike things.
>
> I doubt he would have considered 'threshold' a reductionistic term per se,
> but merely that it was misleading for this purpose.
>
> Regards,
> Tim