Derek Zahn wrote:
Richard: I get tripped up on your definition of complexity:
> A system contains a certain amount of complexity in it if it
> has some regularities in its overall behavior that are governed
> by mechanisms that are so tangled that, for all practical purposes,
> we must assume that we will never be able to find a closed-form
> explanation of how the global arises from the local.
on figuring out what counts as a regularity in overall behavior.
Consider a craps table. The trajectories of the dice would seem to have
global regularities (for which craps players and normal people have
words and phrases, like "bouncing off the back", "flying off the table",
or whatever). Our ability to create concepts around this activity would
seem to imply the existence of global regularities (finding them is what
we do when we make concepts). Yet the behavior of those regularities is
not just physical law but the specific configuration of the felt, the
chips, the wind, and so forth, and all that data makes a closed-form
explanation impractical.
Yet, I don't get the sense that this is what you mean by a "complex"
system. If it is, your contention that they are rare is certainly not
correct, since many such examples can easily be found. This aspect of
complexity iillustrates the "butterfly effect" often used in discussions
of complexity.
I'm not trying to be difficult; it's crucial for me to understand what
you mean (versus my interpretation of what others have meant or my own
internal definitions) if I am to follow your argument.
Okay, I will respond to your questions on two fronts (!) - I just posted
a reply to your comment on the blog, too.
In the above, you mention butterfly effects. This is not a mainstream
example of complexity, it is "chaos", which is not exactly the same thing.
More generally, you cannot say that a system is complex by itself, it is
a system with respect to a particular regularity in its behavior.
The solar system, for example, is not complex: the planets move in
wonderfully predictable orbits.
BUT... actually the solar system *is* complex, because Pluto's behavior
is unstable, and every once in a while it comes in and messes with
everyone else.
So if the solar system remains utterly predictable for a hundred million
years, and then Pluto goes AWOL for a few years, what is it? It is
partially complex, with just a tiny degree of complexity superimposed on
otherwise non-complex behavior. We cannot give a black and white answer
to the question "is it complex?".
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
