Re: Comparing Rosennean Complexity

[Judith Rosen <***>]

The quarrel between myself and Don M. was over his contention that "Rosen
said" there is no such thing as a simple system in the material world; that
all simple systems are formal systems (i.e. models). I told him
[paraphrasing here]; that was incorrect and did not accurately reflect my
father's theoretical beliefs. That's when it got ugly.

But the truth is what it is. The thing people seem to get confused on is; if
complexity is a fundamental tendency in the universe, how can any material
system be simple (non-complex)? My father's answer was that both types of
organization co-exist in this universe (it's even possible that there are
others) and it is the organization that determines whether the system is
complex or non-complex. Don M's argument was that if atoms are complex and a
car engine is made of atoms and made by humans and so on... how can that be
a "simple system". But that's a reductionist approach. The parts are not
what determines complexity; ORGANIZATION is what determines complexity. A
car engine is a system with non-complex organization. A simple system in the
material world.

It's easy to transform a complex system into a simple system: collapse the
complex organization. Kill the organism. We have the technology to build a
dead organism out of other dead parts. That's not so hard,
really.Complicated but not complex. The parts can all be modelled too, and
computed. It's the organization of the living organism that's beyond the
reductionist approach to model completely because the organization involves
interrelationships that are constantly in motion, constantly in a state of
"flux" or change. Any "snapshot" you try to take of the organism's complex
organization is already out of date, in a sense. Out of time. Therefore,
incomplete.

Judith

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] 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.
>
>
>
> JJK
>