Hi Richard, I'll de-lurk here to say that I find this email to be utterly reasonable, and that's with my crackpot detectors going off a lot lately, no offense to you of course.
I do disagree that complexity is not its own science. I'm not wedded to the idea, like the folks you profile in your email, but I think its contribution has been small because it's in its infancy. We've been developing reductionist tools for hundreds of years now. I think we're in the equivalent of the pre-calculus days when it comes to complexity science. And we haven't made much progress because the traditional scientific method depends on direct causal linkages. On the contrary, complex systems exhibit behavior at a global level that is not predictable from the local level... so there's a causal relationship only in the weakest sense. It's much more straightforward, I think, to say that the two levels, the global and the local, are "causally orthogonal" to one another. Both levels can be described by completely independent causal dynamics. It's a new science because it's a new method. Isolating variables to determine relationships doesn't lend itself well to massively parallel networks that are just lousy with feedback, because it's impossible to hold the other values still, and worse, the behavior is sensitive to experimental noise. You could write a book on the difference between the traditional scientific method and the methods for studying complexity. I'm sure it's been done, actually. The study of complexity will eventually fulfill its potential as a new science, because if we are ever to understand the brain and the mind and model them with any real precision, it will be due to complexity science *as much as* traditional reductionist science. We need the benefit of both to gain real understanding where traditional science has failed. Our human minds are simply too limited to grasp the enormity of the scale of complexity within a single cell, much less a collection of a few trillion of them, also arranged in an unfathomably complex arrangement. The idea that complexity science will *not* figure prominently into the study of the body, the brain, and the mind, is an absurd proposition to me. We will be going in the right direction when more and more of us are simulating something without any clue what the result will be. That's all for now... thanks for your post Richard. Terren --- On Sun, 6/29/08, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [agi] Approximations of Knowledge > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, June 29, 2008, 9:23 PM > Brad Paulsen wrote: > > Richard, > > > > I think I'll get the older Waldrop book now > because I want to learn more > > about the ideas surrounding complexity (and, in > particular, its > > association with, and differentiation from, chaos > theory) as soon as > > possible. But, I will definitely put an entry in my > Google calendar to > > keep a lookout for the new book in 2009. > > > > Thanks very much for the information! > > > > Cheers, > > > > Brad > > You're welcome. I hope it is not a disappointment: > the subject is a > peculiar one, so I believe that it is better to start off > with the kind > of journalistic overview that Waldrop gives. Let me know > what your > reaction is. > > Here is the bottom line. At the core of the complex > systems idea there > is something very significant and very powerful, but a lot > of people > have wanted it to lead to a new science just like some of > the old > science. In other words, they have wanted there to be a > new, fabulously > powerful 'general theory of complexity' coming down > the road. > > However, no such theory is in sight, and there is one view > of complexity > (mine, for example) that says that there will probably > never be such a > theory. If this were one of the traditional sciences, the > absence of > that kind of progress toward unification would be a sign of > trouble - a > sign that this was not really a new science after all. Or, > even worse, > a sign that the original idea was bogus. But I believe > that is the > wrong interpretation to put on it. The complexity idea is > very > significant, but it is not a science by itself. > > Having said all of that, there are many people who so much > want there to > be a science of complexity (enough of a science that there > could be an > institute dedicated to it, where people have real jobs > working on > 'complex systems'), that they are prepared to do a > lot of work that > makes it look like something is happening. So, you can > find many > abstract papers about complex dynamical systems, with > plenty of > mathematics in them. But as far as I can see, most of that > stuff is > kind of peripheral ... it is something to do to justify a > research program. > > At the end of the day, I think that the *core* complex > systems idea will > outlast all this other stuff, but it will become famous for > its impact > on oter sciences, rather than for the specific theories of > 'complexity' > that it generates. > > > We will see. > > > > Richard Loosemore > > > > > > > > > Richard Loosemore wrote: > >> Brad Paulsen wrote: > >>> Or, maybe... > >>> > >>> "Complexity: Life at the Edge of > Chaos" > >>> Roger Lewin, 2000 $10.88 (new, paperback) from > Amazon (no used copies) > >>> Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos by Roger > Lewin (Paperback - Feb > >>> 15, 2000) > >> > >> Nope, not that one either! > >> > >> Darn. > >> > >> I think it may have been Simplexity (Kluger), but > I am not sure. > >> > >> Interestingly enough, Melanie Mitchell has a book > due out in 2009 > >> called "The Core Ideas of the Sciences of > Complexity". Interesting > >> title, given my thoughts in the last post. > >> > >> > >> > >> 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/?&; > >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > 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/?&; > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- 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=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
