Re: Comparing Rosennean Complexity

[John M <***>]

Tim, sorry!~
I was still writing corrections to my post some minutes ago when the darn
kraxlwerk snatched it from my Outbox and I had no way to hold it back.
Then (after throwing out a dozen spam) your present post came to life
with very related ideas to what I suggested to you.

I should use a separate computer (wordprocessor) to complose finishable
posts and then transfer it to e-mail. Maybe in my next life.

Apologies

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
> > >