[FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?
Owen Densmore
owen at backspaces.net
Wed Jun 7 16:40:14 EDT 2017
Troll
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ Abbott <russ.abbott at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nick,
>
> When you say "This is a great test," I'm not sure what the "this" is.
> Would you mind saying what it is again.
>
> In partial answer to your question about what's left to explain, let me
> quote a list of bullet points I recently wrote when writing about urban
> systems.
>
>
> - Urban systems are open (in the system sense of openness). They
> exchange materials and energy with the world beyond their boundaries.
>
>
> - Urban systems are chaotic (in the formal sense). Small changes in
> initial conditions may produce very different results.
>
>
> - Urban systems are path-dependent.
>
>
> - Urban systems are subject to paradoxes and unintended consequences.
>
>
> - Urban systems involve disproportionate causality. Small causes may
> produce large effects.
>
>
> - Urban systems are adaptive and change through evolutionary
> processes.
>
>
> - Urban systems typically involve multiple (and often large) numbers
> of agents or equivalent sources of energy. As discussed below, many of
> these are causally autonomous.
>
>
> - Urban systems are not in equilibrium.
>
>
> - Urban systems must be sustainable, i.e., it remains within a range
> of relatively familiar or foreseeable states.
>
>
> - Urban systems must be resilient, with mechanisms to return to an
> acceptable state after a serious disruption.
>
>
> - Urban systems must also remain flexible and vital with means to
> adapt to changing conditions.
>
> These tend to be qualities we attribute to (most?) complex systems. Do we
> want to say that all complex systems (most?) have these qualities? Do we
> want to ask how a complex system defined according to definition X
> necessarily develops these qualities or provably has them?
>
> Is this what you are getting at?
>
> -- Russ
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:00 AM Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Russ,
>>
>>
>>
>> Something Glen said suggests to me that my concerns about circularity are
>> detracking this thread from its Higher Purpose. I have therefore started a
>> new thread.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for providing this definition. It really helps to mark my
>> concern. I would argue that what you are offering here is *an
>> explanation of* complex systems, and that this definition actually begs
>> the question of what is a complex system. Yeah. I know. Where do I
>> muster the arrogance to make such an assertion?
>>
>>
>>
>> Try this: Let it be the case that you define complex systems in the way
>> you have, what is left to be explained about them? In other words, if
>> this is what complex systems ARE, what are you still curious about?
>>
>>
>>
>> If you take seriously the definition of complex system I have given (or
>> some other non-explanatory definition), then your definition here *becomes
>> a [heuristic] theory of complex systems*. It answers the question, How
>> did complex systems come about? What are the essential conditions for the
>> occurrence of such systems. And we can precede to ask ourselves, as an
>> empirical matter, how many of these features are actually necessary (or
>> sufficient) for a complex system to arise. From my point of view, what
>> complexity-folk always do is insist that discussants endorse a particularly
>> explanatory metaphor BEFORE any question can be raised. That would be like
>> insisting that discussants endorse the proposition that natural selection
>> explains evolution before we get to ask the question, What is evolution and
>> how did it come about?
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a great test. If I cannot convince you, and the others, to see
>> any possible perils in the sort of definition you offer here, then you
>> probably should just go back to “painting the floor” and leave me to rave
>> in peace about the fact that there is no door in the corner you are so
>> skillfully painting.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for putting the matter so clearly. Clarity is an absolute
>> necessity for progress.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Russ
>> Abbott
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 12:21 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam at redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?
>>
>>
>>
>> I didn't define complex system. (Actually, this thread is so long I may
>> have offered one. I don't remember.)
>>
>>
>>
>> I take a complex system to be a system (do we need to define that?
>> Presumably some collection of interacting entities around which one can
>> draw a boundary that distinguishes the collection from its environment.)
>> that has the following characteristics/capabilities.
>>
>> - It can acquire and store free energy, e.g., as fat biologically or
>> stress geologically. The free energy is acquired from outside the system.
>> - It does that in multiple (more or less) independent ways, (E.g.,
>> lots of "agents.")
>> - Those reservoirs of free energy can be released by triggers. (E.g.,
>> there are switches that open and close the flow of energy from these
>> reservoirs.)
>> - The released energy flows in some cases act as triggers, i.e., they
>> flip switches, to release other energy flows.
>>
>> I think that's the core of it. (I haven't attempted to develop a complete
>> definition. I'm not sure it's worth doing.)
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like an additional feature, although I'm unsure to what extent I
>> would consider it necessary.
>>
>> - The system operates in part on the basis of symbols, i.e.,
>> information. (I'm not sure things other than biological systems and human
>> artifacts do that, which is what probably prompted my question in the first
>> place.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:05 AM Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Russ,
>>
>>
>>
>> I seem to be missing some of the correspondence, and I apologize for
>> that. Thanks for updating me.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, did you also, in your post, offer a definition of “complex system”
>> that excludes hurricanes?
>>
>>
>>
>> I am, as you would predict, a little troubled by your locution, “that
>> uses energy.” Seems somehow to suggest that the hurricane, as a system,
>> exists in advance of the energy flows that make it happen. The “use”
>> metaphor – I use a hammer to hit a nail – implies that both me and the
>> hammer exist before the use takes place. If we use the hurricane as a
>> metaphor for nail use, the nail and the hammer construct me to use them, or
>> something like that. That formulation is weird, also, but sufficient to
>> make my point.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Russ
>> Abbott
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 12:46 AM
>>
>>
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam at redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick,
>>
>>
>>
>> When you suggested a hurricane as an example of a complex system I
>> replied that a hurricane is interesting because it's a non-biological
>> system (and not a human artifact) that uses energy that it extracts from
>> outside itself to maintain its structure. That's an interesting and
>> important characteristic. Biological systems do that also, Maturana &
>> Varela, but I don't see that as sufficient to grant it the quality of being
>> a complex system.
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Russ
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:06 PM Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Glen,
>>
>>
>>
>> Larding below:
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of ?glen?
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 11:34 AM
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com
>> >
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?
>>
>>
>>
>> Although you're repeating what I'd said earlier about relying on a more
>> vernacular sense of "complex", we have to admit something you've yet to
>> acknowledge.
>>
>> *[NST==>I missed this, and going back through the thread, I have not
>> found it. Can you reproduce it for me without too much strain? <==nst] *
>>
>> (I realize that the things I've said in this thread have been mostly
>> ignorable. So, it's reasonable that they've been missed.) First, circular
>> reasoning is used all the time in math.
>>
>> *[NST==>I am not talking about tautology, here: x is x. I am talking
>> about circular explanation: x is the cause of x. Surely you would agree
>> that having defined X as whatever is caused by Y, I have not added much to
>> our store of knowledge concerning what sorts of things Y causes. But you
>> are correct, not all circular explanations are entirely vicious/vacuous, of
>> course. It depends on the assumptions the discussants bring to the table.
>> See,
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281410347_Comparative_psychology_and_the_recursive_structure_of_filter_explanations<==nst
>> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281410347_Comparative_psychology_and_the_recursive_structure_of_filter_explanations%3c==nst>]*
>>
>> So, it is not the bug-a-boo logicians claim it to be. Again, Maturana &
>> Varela, Rosen, Kaufmann, et al have all used it to valid and sound effect.
>>
>> *[NST==>I would be grateful for a passage from any of these folks where
>> strictly circular reasoning is used to good effect. <==nst] *
>>
>>
>>
>> Second, your "interact more closely with one another than they do with
>> entities outside the set" is nothing but _closure_.
>>
>> *[NST==>Well, if that is how one defines closure, then I am bound to
>> agree. Then, it’s not clear to me what the function of “nothing but” is,
>> in your sentence. But reading through your earlier posts (petri dish)
>> suggests that for you closure is absolute; for me, systematicity is a
>> variable and we would have to have some sort of a mutual understanding of
>> where along that dimension we start calling something a system. <==nst] *
>>
>> Or if I can infer from the lack of response to my broaching the term, we
>> could use "coherence" or some other word.
>>
>> *[NST==>Yes, but coherence, for me, carries more richness than what I was
>> grasping for. For you, perhaps not. I guess “coherence” is ok. <==nst] *
>>
>> And that means that your working definition is not naive.
>>
>> *[NST==>Huh? You mean I don’t get to be in charge of whether I am naïve,
>> or not? Are you some kind of behaviorist? <==nst] *
>>
>> It does rely on an intuition that many of us share.
>>
>> *[NST==>Bollox! It relies on the plain meaning of the word (he said
>> grumpily). <==nst] *
>>
>> But in order for you to know what you're talking about, you have to
>> apply a bit more formality to that concept.
>>
>> *[NST==>This thread isn’t coherent for me. Somebody asks if natural
>> systems can be complex. This is a lot of intricate talk which I frankly
>> didn’t follow but which seemed to suggest that only symbol systems could be
>> complex. But I could detect no definition of complexity to warrant that
>> restriction. So I offered a definition of complexity (which may have been
>> the same as yours – forgive me), offered an example of a natural complex
>> system, a hurricane, and came to the conclusion that indeed, some natural
>> systems are complex. To my knowledge, nobody has addressed that claim.
>> But I have been traveling, my eye sight sucks, and I may have missed it.
>> If anybody has addressed this claim, could somebody direct me to a copy of
>> their post. I would be grateful. <==nst] *
>>
>>
>>
>> *Perhaps Steve Smith, who has often rescued me when I have made these
>> messes in the past, could gently point out to me my error. *
>>
>>
>>
>> *Top temperature today 49 degrees. 90’s predicted for next week. I am
>> ready. *
>>
>>
>>
>> *Best to you all, *
>>
>>
>>
>> *Nick *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/06/2017 07:20 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Eric and Steve, and the gang,
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > When I first moved to Santa Fe on Sabbatical 12 years ago, I was merely
>> 67, and there was a chance, just a chance, that I might become expert
>> enough in complexity science and model programming to deal with you guys
>> on a somewhat equal footing. But that never happened, and, now, it is too
>> late. I am amazed by the intricacy of your discussion and the broad reach
>> of your thought. There is really little more than I can do then wish you
>> all well, and back out of the conversation with my head bowed and my hat
>> clasped to my chest.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Before I leave this conversation, I would like to offer the dubious
>> benefits of what expertise I do have, which concerns the perils of circular
>> reasoning. I come by that expertise honestly, through years of struggling
>> with the odd paradox of evolutionary biology and psychology, that neither
>> field seems every to quite get on with the business of explaining the
>> design of things. When George Williams famously defined adaptation as
>> whatever natural selection produces he forever foreclosed to himself and
>> his legions of followers, the possibility of saying what sort of a world an
>> adapted world is, what the products of natural selection are like. One of
>> you has pointed out that this is an old hobby horse with me, and suggested,
>> perhaps, that it's time to drag the old nag to the glue factory. But I
>> intend to give it one last outing.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > So, I have a question for you all: Do you guys know what you are
>> talking about?! Now I DON’T mean that how it sounds. I don’t mean to
>> question your deep knowledge of the technology and theory of complexity.
>> Hardly. What I do mean to ask is if, perhaps, you may sometimes lose
>> sight of the phenomenon you are trying to explain, the mystery you hope to
>> solve. Natural selection theory became so sophisticated, well-developed
>> and intricate that its practitioners lost track of the phenomenon they were
>> trying to account for, the mystery they were trying to solve. We never
>> developed a descriptive mathematics of design to complement our elaborate
>> explanatory mathematics of natural selection. Until we have such a
>> descriptive system, natural selection theory is just a series of ad hoc
>> inventions, not a theory subject to falsification but “a metaphysical
>> research program” as Popper once famously said, which can always be
>> rejiggered to be correct. Is there a risk of an analogous problem in
>> complexity science? You will have to say.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > So, I will ask the question again: Do you guys know what you are
>> talking about?! What is complexity?? If the answer you give is in terms
>> of the deeply technical, causal language of your field, there is a danger
>> that you have lost sight of what it is you are trying to account for. And
>> here a little bit of naivety could be very helpful. Naivety is all I have
>> to offer, I will offer it. Whatever complexity might be, it is the
>> opposite of simplicity, no? It is in that spirit that I propose a working
>> definition of complexity with which to explore this thread’s question:
>> “Are any non-biological systems complex?”
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > An object is any collection or entity designated for the purposes of
>> conversation.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > A system is a set of objects that interact more closely with one
>> another than they do with entities outside the set.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > A system is complex if the objects that compose it are themselves
>> systems.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Only when complex systems have been clearly defined, is it rational to
>> ask the question, “Are any natural systems complex?” Now you may not like
>> my definition, but I think you will agree that once it is accepted, the
>> answer to the question is clearly, “Yes!”
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Take hurricanes. Is a hurricane composed of
>> thunderstorms? Clearly, Yes. Are thunderstorms themselves systems. This
>> is a bit less clear, because the boundaries among thunderstorms in a
>> hurricane may be a bit hazy, but if one thinks of a thunderstorm as a
>> convective cell -- a column of rising air and its related low level inflow
>> and high level outflow – then a thunderstorm is definitely a system, and a
>> hurricanes are made up of them. Hurricanes may also display an
>> intermediate system-level, a spiral band, which consists of a system of
>> thunderstorms spiraling in toward the hurricane’s center. Thus, a
>> hurricane could easily be shown to be a three-level complex system.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Notice that this way preceding saves all the intricate explanatory
>> apparatus of complexity theory for the job of accounting for how hurricanes
>> come about. Now we can ask the question, What kinds of energy flows (insert
>> correct terminology, here) occur in all complex systems? Notice also,
>> that this procedure prevents any of us from importing his favorite
>> explanation for complex systems into their definition, guaranteeing the
>> truth of the explanation no matter what the facts might be, and rendering
>> the theory vacuous. .
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > One last comment. When I wrote that perhaps we might inquire of the
>> system whether it is complex or not, I left myself wide open to be
>> misunderstood. I meant only to say, that it is the properties of the
>> system, itself, not its causes, that should determine the answer to the
>> question. Remember that, in all matters, I am a behaviorist. If I would
>> distrust your answer concerning whether you are hungry or not, I certainly
>> would not trust a systems answer concerning whether it is complex or not.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ␦glen?
>>
>> ============================================================
>>
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170607/df667cfe/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list