|
JK wrote: Since "system" always refers to an abstraction of a complex
whole, there
are no actual systems "out there" as such. They all are
complexly
interrelated.
I would dispute that we could say, either way, that ALL systems are
"complexly interrelated" or not. That extrapolates from a very small subset of
observables as perceived through human capabilities. It makes sense to me that
this is a complex universe, although it doesn't make sense to me that all
systems are but fragments of some unified whole (meaning the universe) or that
all systems in the universe are complex because they are part of a complex
universe. This is actually a reductionistic view, in my opinion. It's
also perilously close to Don's position, which may or may not be true-- but
it is not what my father believed and whatever faith I have in someone's ability
to sort such things out is very much on Robert Rosen's side in that debate. It
was his assertion that it is the organization of whatever we are calling a
system which specifies the properties that "system" exhibits and while
this is admittedly an abstraction, the unique causality that is generated
by organization holds up to testability and the Herzian Condition Howard
mentioned.
The fact that you can have two atoms of the same element, but they
differ in their organization and that makes the properties of one
markedly different from the properties of the other (as we saw in the
radioactive carbon thread) is significant. The fact that you can have molecules
of oxygen which cycle back and forth between different organizational properties
(molecules of even or odd numbers of atoms, ie; ozone and free
oxygen) in the stratosphere as they interact with radiation from the
sun.... and that the effects of this kind of interaction-- as sunlight
further interacts with IT-- can have cascading repercussions in webs
of life on the surface of the planet... is significant. So is the fact that
ozone, in a different organizational relation to living organisms, is toxic (is
a component of smog, in fact). Where two things are when they interact matters.
So does "when" and various other aspects of time. The fact that a chunk of
carbon can take so many different forms based on the organization of the atoms
and the further organization of the molecules of each... is significant.
But the fact that diamonds are pure carbon in a crystallized form and human
beings are "carbon-based" organisms isn't about the carbon. A diamond is a
simple system made up of complex systems (atoms). The organization of the
crystal is different from the organization of the atoms of which it is made.
There are many different types of crystal made up of different elements or
compounds, some of which are very difficult to tell from diamonds because all
crystals exhibit certain properties... Similarly, there are many different
types of living organisms, made up of different parts, different elements,
different energy chains in the food webs... but we can recognize them as living
because living systems exhibit certain properties. It's the organizational
effects we are recognizing.
Are all things in the universe integral "components" in the
so-called largest complex system? I don't think so. But I do think
that the context of the universe (or various aspects of the context) is an
essential "component" in us: particularly as we experience the behavior
of these aspects here on the surface of the planet where we evolved.
And, once again, what we experience of any aspect of the universe,
including our sun, is the combined interactions that it (meaning any
given aspect of the universe) goes through on its way to where we
are. You might say that sunlight is sunlight or some more technical scientific
name (waves of radiation, etc), but to our skin, sunlight is one thing
that has certain properties, certain effects as skin interacts with it; to a
plant, it's another thing, with different interactive properties and
different effects...; to our eyes, it's yet another, and so on.
I've said it before: it isn't just that two things can interact and create
effects that is involved in this kind of causality; it's also the fact that how
they interact, when, for how long, at what rate, etc... all these aspects of
interaction which are context-based (context having been created by the
organization) constrain the interaction itself and the effects can be
radically different based on such constraints. So the effects of interaction, as
specified by how things are organized, is very much a "local" phenomenon as well
as a global phenomenon.
Judith
PS: Do you remember the third (I think...) Star Trek movie-- the
one with the whales? Remember the creature that was trying to talk to the
Humpbacks which were extinct and therefore not talking back... and the
Star Fleet computers couldn't recognize the language this alien
thing was using, but when Spock figured out that it was directing its
communication attempts at the ocean, he factored the effects of sea-water
interacting with the sound and suddenly, everyone recognized what "language" it
was. Whale song. My point is that this was coming at the whales from "outer
space" but by the time they were perceiving it, it was radically different
because of various interactions on the way. Incidentally, this is what I don't
see in Biosemiotics and what needs to be involved there; one more reason the
underlying scientific paradigm itself needs expanding.
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 11:02
AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Is it sure that any
mechanism has a largest model? (LI,8C, p.205)
Judith,
Agreed. It seems again that both our points are
sustained, however.
Since "system" always refers to an abstraction of a
complex whole, there
are no actual systems "out there" as such. They all
are complexly
interrelated. When the complexiologist imagins a complex
system, he/she
is abstracting some system, say a marsh ecosystem, and
saying not only
is the abstracted system complex, but we recognize that
its complexity
extends beyond its definition. When the complexiologist
imagines a
simple system, say a car or a solar system, again it is
understood to be
an abstraction from a complex reality, and not manifest
as such.
However, the issue with the old-world mechanistic view, also
associated
with the positivistic view in science, is that the though was
popular
that actual simple mechanisms could exist in nature as such, and
in fact
all of nature was a simple mechanism. So, what I'm pointing out is
that
this discussion is not really about the system itself - we all agree
now
that they are all more than what we describe; it is about one's
concept
of reality as complex or simple. If reality is complex, then there
are
no true simple systems that are natural systems, there are only simple
systems that are formal systems - which I suggest is what we have both
been saying, but I am trying to be definitive about it. I believe that
saying there are indeed simple systems in nature (i.e., natural systems
that are simple) is precisely the error Rosen was strongly dismissing;
but indeed, if we agree that simple systems are abstractions, then we
can discuss the simple aspect of the solar system which involves its
dynamical, object-in-space, chemical, etc. aspects that exhibit law-like
behavior, while ignoring those aspects that do not; and in that sense we
can discuss a simple solar system.
JK
Judith Rosen
wrote:
>Hi John (K),
>
>You're right about any natural
system that is "a mechanism" being a
>fragment because complexity
basically proves that "context" is
>inseparable from "system" in
reality. However, the word system refers
>to something, which was
described in Life, Itself as (this is from
>memory, not a direct
quote):"a collection of percepts which, to the
>self, seem to belong
together". That's already an abstraction based on
>fragmentation. So
any way we speak of systems is going to be a similar
>sort of
fragmentation-- this goes back to what human consciousness can
>"know",
etc. However, insofar as we can speak of "complex systems" in
>the
natural world, we can also find "simple systems" or mechanisms
>(which
is different from "machine", by the way). My father used to
>refer to a
solar system as a "simple system", for
example.
>
>Judith
>
>
> ----- Original
Message -----
> From: John Kineman
> To: ***
>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 4:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [ROSEN]
Is it sure that any mechanism has a largest
>model? (LI,8C,
p.205)
>
>
> Judith,
>
> It is a
philosophical question indeed, however I am inclined to say
>
there are no whole systems in nature that are mechanisms. It's
>sort-of
a
> word game in a way, because if you did find a system that you
could
>call
> a mechanisms, then I could point out that
your system definition
>isn't
> whole, i.e., isn't complete
(its a fraction). For example, let's
> consider a piece of paper
as a mechanism (i.e., a "thing"). This is
>true
> if we
restrict our abstractions only to the physical properties of
>what
> we call the paper. But then I annoyingly come in
and point out that
>the
> paper is part of a paper
manufacturing system and was delivered to
>the
> classroom
by a transportation system, and all involve people and the
>
natural ecosystem and ultimately the entire universe. Hence the
>"piece
> of paper" is actually complex, unless by "piece
of paper" we agree
>we
> are referring only to the
mechanistic concept of "piece of paper,"
>that
> concept
being one in which we can define separate state-objects in
>an
> extended space and time.
>
> That's
basically what I'm getting at.
> JK
>
> Judith
Rosen wrote:
>
> >Hi John K.
>
>
> >I agree with part of this statement, below, but I have
some qualms
> >about certain aspects of it:
>
>
> >John Kineman wrote: The very concept of "mechanism"
presumes a
>finite
> >largest model
>
>that is therefore a reality, and yet we also understand any
>
>mechanistic
> >theory to be an approximation to reality.
Both cannot be true.
>Hence
> >either the entire
universe is a mechanism, and there is no
>complexity,
>
>or there are no real mechanisms, all of them are
abstractions.
> >
> >It is not only "any
mechanistic theory" that is an approximation to
> >"reality"...
all of science would have to be considered the same
>way,
>
>including Rosennean Complexity Theory. Even a concept like
>"reality"
> >is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?
But just because our
> >conception of the universe is an
approximate thing, that's no
>reason
> >to give up on
trying to learn about the universe, right? I don't
>see
>
>these things as being mutually exclusive.
> >
>
>It's important to remember that Complexity in my father's sense
>refers
> >to organizational aspects. So are there
"mechanisms" in the real
> >world? Yes. Is it an abstraction?
Yes. But, so is the concept that
>we
> >refer to as "the
real world". Abstraction, in this case, just means
> >"as
funneled through the human apparatus" but since we are all
>humans
> >here (presumably)... it's not a problem. A
mechanism, as defined
>via
> >Rosennean Complexity
Theory, is a system with an organization that
>is
> >not
complex. This goes back to what Mikulecky found impossible to
>
>grasp: that there can be simple systems created out of
complex
> >components. But a system is not defined by it's
parts, remember?
> >
> >Judith
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
|