Re: Comparing Rosennean Complexity

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John
> Kineman
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 8:29 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Comparing Rosennean Complexity
>
>
> 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.
>

I agree on all your points. I particularly like the phrasing "one
degenerates a complex system to a simple one". That strikes me as very apt.

Regards,
Tim