Re: Comparing Rosennean Complexity

[John M <***>]

Dear Tim,

wouldn't it be more fruitful if we concentrate on the concepts pertinent -
and within RR-language, ideas, vision, whatever?
"Complex' and 'simple' are personalized qualifiers of reductionist models.
(Convoluted is not the same for Einstein as it is for me) "simple" is a
model
having cut off (by boundaries?) most of its complicatedness.
So why fill up our ideads - and this list with distraction?
"One should never indulge in the enemy's turf".
All my 'due respect' for J. von Neumann (indeed I appreciate this (older)
schoolmate of mine) but he was "before" our topic evolved.
Are there are 'words' we cannot get over with?
Why not concentrate on RR vocabulary (thoughts!)? Not the ones - mind you -
he fought against.
Threshold in an unlimited interconnectedness? well, quantitatively I can
think of such, as the 'differential strength' of influences, formulating a
(natural) togetherness (I don't apply here "unit").
If we want to "think new" we should "talk new" and forget about "old".

When you say:
> Since we, as humans, cannot step outside of the world, our interactions
with
> the world, and thereby our interactions with systems we identify in
> modelling relations, are always subject to the notion of complexity above.
I would change the last two word to 'reductionism'.
Our point of view should be RR-complexity, even when acknowledging our
difficulties in staying there.

John Mikes


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: Comparing Rosennean Complexity


> Judith's and JohnK's comments reminded me of another central reason that
> "threshold" is an improper term to apply to the distinction between
'simple'
> and 'complex'. It is that 'threshold' implies an intrinsic objective
> property of material reality, whereas Rosennean complexity involves the
> irreducible interaction between subjective and objective (mainly, if not
> wholly, embodied in the form of the modelling relation process). From AS:
>
> "John von Neumann argued that there was a kind of "threshold" of
complexity,
> below which systems behaved with their traditional regularities, but above
> which entirely new kinds of phenomena emerge, such as self-reproduction,
> evolution, and free will, which are sui generis, and which can have no
> counterpart in systems of lesser complexity.
> A corollary of the idea that complexity possesses such a threshold is that
> it is a quality of systems which can in fact be measured, or at least
> computed on the basis of other measurements. Thus, a great deal of
> literature on system complexity exists; this literature stresses such
things
> as the number of components or variables involved in a particular
> description of the system, or the richness of the inter-connection of
these
> components, or the length of the shortest algorithm required to construct
> the system. In all of these approaches, complexity is not only viewed as
> intrinsic to a system, but even is referred to a single particular mode of
> description of that system.
> In what follows, we are going to take a quite different  approach. Namely,
> we are going to define a system to be complex to the extent that we can
> observe it in non-equivalent ways.
> ----
> This approach to complexity is novel in several ways. For one thing, it
> requires that complexity is not an intrinsic property of a system nor of a
> system description. Rather, it arises from the number of ways in which we
> are able to interact with the system. Thus, complexity is a function not
> only of the system's interactive capabilities, but [also] of our own." [AS
> 321-322]
>
> Since we, as humans, cannot step outside of the world, our interactions
with
> the world, and thereby our interactions with systems we identify in
> modelling relations, are always subject to the notion of complexity above.
> This is why I like John's "one degenerates a complex system to a simple
> one", because it embodies the active role of the interaction of the
observer
> in the simple/complex distinction, and it also highlights that such
> degeneration amounts to the imposition of artefactual restrictions.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Judith
> > Rosen
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:54 PM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: Comparing Rosennean Complexity
> >
> >
> > 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
> > >