I think you're right on point. There is a lot of theory without referent in this general field (as there is or was in various other complex systems theory movements). Maybe because this one came more out of physics the fuzzy language has a physics twang. There's that magical notion of "the edge of chaos" for example. I think it has some mathematical meaning in a specific chaotic system, but then I saw it defined as an environmental variable in a virtual complex systems computer model, and then saw it widely used in the popular press as the statistical middle ground between predictability and unpredictability. The idea conveyed in discussion with both uses is that there's something like "the edge of play" in a game of daring that in inherently creative in nature, but nobody can point to what they mean by it, or who the player is. I have some examples of things sort of like that, and it's tempting to play on the popularity of the term, but it may not mean anything.
Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph L. Breeden > Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 11:56 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [FRIAM] Definition of Complexity > > > > I'm usually very quiet on this group. I almost always follow > the discussions and often look up the references, but I must > say that you've hit on a topic that has been bothering me for > a decade. I did my thesis work applying chaos theory to > astrophysical systems (about 15 years ago). It was always > critically important that we could define what a chaotic > system was, we had statistical tools for showing that a > system was probably chaotic according to the scientific > definition, and there was a rapidly growing body of > mathematical literature (not all of which I could follow) > providing a theoretical basis. > > Complexity theory troubles me because it is treated like > pornography. "I know it when I see it." I remember a brief > discussion around the launch of the Journal of Complexity (I > think it was that one), where someone asked, "Don't we need a > definition of complexity to have a journal of complexity?" > They were rebuffed by the editors with the comment that "the > submitting authors will create the definition". > > I am sympathetic to the difficulty in defining complexity, > but I have always felt that the lack of a clear definition is > the primary thing holding back complexity theory. With chaos > theory, if someone publishes a book on "chaos theory in > literary review of the renaissance" (don't laugh), we have > tools to point out that they are abusing a mathematically > grounded scientific term (even if the choice of the word > "chaos" is partly responsible for the abuses). In complexity, > I lack the tools to go to the author of a book on "complexity > theory in business management" and discuss whether it is > being used properly or the author is just stealing a term for > purposes of marketing. > > So, this is where I am out of date. At this point, do you all > consider chaos theory to be a subset of complexity? (I have > my doubts, since three bodies in orbit are chaotic, but are > they "complex"?) Owen listed some useful statistics to > compute to identify chaos theory, but are any of these or the > Reynolds number really viewed as a definition of complexity? > (Robert is pursuing this question and I'm glad to read it.) > Do you believe that a definition (verbal or mathematical) of > complexity now exists which would allow a practitioner to > confirm that a system is "complex"? Again, I'm showing how > long ago I worked in this area, but complexity always seemed > to be defined in terms of "emergence", which also had a > troubling definition -- along the lines of "something we > didn't expect". Again very bad. > > I've asked too many questions for this kind of forum, but if > a seminal paper has come along in the last decade which > resolves all this, I would greatly appreciate a reference. > > Thanks much, and I'm sorry if I've stepped on any toes. I > tend to go stomping about without my glasses rather often. > > Joe Breeden > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
