Re: [ROSEN Ways of defining Rosennean Complexity

[Judith Rosen <***>]

John Kineman wrote:
> This tells me I am behind in my reading. I would have preferred a quote
> saying that complexity is indeed a property of a given system, and that
> it can be distinguished from the complexities the observer provides.

John, the quote I posted elaborates on the statement such that it is the way
you would prefer. Here it is again:

>Robert Rosen wrote:"We are going to relate our capacity to produce
independent
>encodings[non-equivalent models] of a given natural system with the
>complexity of it. Roughly speaking, the more such encodings we can produce,
>the more complex we will regard the system. Thus, contrary to traditional
>views regarding system complexity, we do not treat complexity as a property
>of some particular encoding. Nor is complexity entirely an objective
>property of the system, in the sense of being itself a directly perceptible
>quality which can be measured by a meter." [snip]

"In the sense of being itself a directly perceptible quality which can be
measured by a meter." In other words, complexity is not just one
description, one aspect, one quality-- which can be measured by a meter. It
is, however, a property-- in totality-- of a given system. These two things
do not conflict. Does that make sense to you?

And the observer part of the quote:

> Robert Rosen wrote: " Rather, complexity pertains at
>least as much to us as observers as it does to the system; it reflects our
>ability to interact with the system IN SUCH A WAY AS TOMAKE ITS QUALITIES
VISIBLE TO US [emphasis, Judith]" [snip]

Remember, he is talking about science here. Science is a human pursuit of
knowledge and scientists are "observers" in that sense. Scientific
observation involves more than just watching a system do its thing in its
natural habitat/context. It involves doing that-- and then perturbing the
system in various ways and observing the differences. So he's talking about
ways we can perturb (interact with) the system such that we "make its
qualities visible to us"-- scientifically. Why scientifically? Because we
want to make models of the system:

> Robert Rosen wrote: "INTUITIVELY SPEAKING [emphasis, Judith], if the
system is such that we can
>interact with it in only a few ways...   " [snip]

Translation: If the system is such that there are only a few system
qualities that we can tease out of this system via perturbing it and
observing its behavior... then:

 > Robert Rosen wrote: "...there will be correspondingly few
>distinct encodings [Translation: non-equivalent models, meaning models that
are not reducible to one another] we can make of the qualities which we
perceive thereby,
>and the system will APPEAR TO US [emphasis, Judith] as a simple system. If
the system is such
>that we can interact with it in many ways [translation: if we can tease out
many non-equivalent system qualities via our perturbations of the system],
we will be able to produce
>correspondingly many distinct encodings [non-equivalent models], and we
will correspondingly
>REGARD [emphasis, Judith] the system as complex."

So, your analysis as follows:

 > John Kineman wrote:
> To wit: If I can produce two different encodings [snip]

DISTINCT encodings, not "different". Non-equivalent encodings, remember...

  > J.K. wrote: ...of the nature of a rock,
say its physical dynamic properties when thrown at a particularly
> annoying colleague, or its chemical properties and usefulness for making
> poison (just kidding about the latent antagonism), then to that extent
> the quote SEEMS [emphasis, Judith] to say that the rock is complex"

Are you beginning to see what I'm driving at here?

 > J.K. wrote: But I would call that
> complexity of the observer, not the rock.

EXACTLY. This is exactly what my father's point is. Furthermore, he said
many times that rocks are not complex because the organization of the
"system" we call "rock" is not complex organization. Hence, all models you
make of the rock-system itself, via your scientific perturbation of it-- as
a system-- and observation of its reactions-- as a system-- to that
perturbation, are going to be equivalent to each other in some way and are
going to add up to a complete formal representation of the system. Bear in
mind that if you reduce the organization of the "rock-system" down to
components or constituents, that's not a perturbation, that's reductionism.
As such, you are not dealing with the same system anymore. A
non-reductionist approach must not change the organization of the system
with its perturbations if the system is what you want to learn about. So
your "interactions" with it are going to be limited to those which don't
destroy the system's organization. The quote above of my father's already
specified that the interactions are similarly limited to "interactions which
reveal essential qualities" of the system that can be modeled. The
importance of the organization is what he's getting at, and it is the
scientific modes of description (models) that he is referring to as
"encodings". For greater detail, I refer people to my father's books because
the explanations that go into greater detail get technical. But these are
the basics.

Judith


>
> I would have preferred to say the rock is not complex because the word
> "rock" means -- is defined as -- the classical system we can throw and
> predict the trajectory of in our measurement frame (hence it inhabits
> the same measurement frame) and that predictability within our frame
> goes all the way down through the chemistry to the atomic level, where
> we start to get natural complexity in the strange behaviors (which can
> be seen as the expression of alternative measurment frames) of the
> imagined parts, i.e., quantum particles, which cease to be strictly
> particles.
>
> Judith Rosen wrote:
>
> >Tim's post requires some elaboration because it is misleading taken out
of
> >context in this way. There are times that my father's definitions can
stand
> >alone and be self-contained. There are also times when he develops a set
of
> >ideas together and putting one or two paragraphs down can give the
opposite
> >impression or an otherwise erroneous impression. Specifically, in the
quote
> >Tim used, the "number of ways of interaction with a system" refers to
making
> >inequivalent models of it, not "how many ways can we use this system" or
> >"how many ways can be play with this system", etc. The inequivalence is
the
> >operative quality with regards to models, and he called inequivalent
models
> >"independent encodings". He develops that idea extensively throughout the
> >book. The quote that Tim posted (included at the bottom of this post) was
> >taken from the end of the book and is embedded in several pages of this
kind
> >of discussion, but it is very misleading taken out of context.
> >
> >In "Anticipatory Systems", my father  was creating a language to describe
> >properties that no one had ever scientifically investigated or that no
one
> >had ever tried to elucidate in writing before. Earlier in the book, he
says
> >the following:
> >
> >"We are going to relate our capacity to produce independent
> >encodings[non-equivalent models] of a given natural system with the
> >complexity of it. Roughly speaking, the more such encodings we can
produce,
> >the more complex we will regard the system. Thus, contrary to traditional
> >views regarding system complexity, we do not treat complexity as a
property
> >of some particular encoding. Nor is complexity entirely an objective
> >property of the system, in the sense of being itself a directly
perceptible
> >quality which can be measured by a meter. Rather, complexity pertains at
> >least as much to us as observers as it does to the system; it reflects
our
> >ability to interact with the system in such a way as to make its
qualities
> >visible to us. Intuitively speaking, if the system is such that we can
> >interact with it in only a few ways, there will be correspondingly few
> >distinct encodings we can make of the qualities which we perceive
thereby,
> >and the system will appear to us as a simple system. If the system is
such
> >that we can interact with it in many ways, we will be able to produce
> >correspondingly many distinct encodings, and we will correspondingly
regard
> >the system as complex."
> >
> >In all of his books, there are different uses of language to describe the
> >same thing. Anticipatory Systems was breaking a lot of new ground and
many
> >of the ideas were articulated in ways he later refined. It might be
useful
> >to post some of these definitions out of the various books for people to
> >discuss. However, I hope that this clears up the seeming inconsistency
> >regarding my father's views and definitions of complexity.
> >
> >Judith
> >
> >Tim Gwinn posted:
> >
> >
> >>Robert Rosen (excerpt from AS): "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]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >>>-----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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
>
> --
> © 2004 John J. Kineman
> all rights reserved