Although I agree that much of the "complexity" we see in social and psychological systems (SoPS) is fundamentally related to the formalization (or lack thereof) of the languages used to formulate the questions and hypothetical models of the systems' mechanisms, I don't think this is where the complexity really comes from. I think the (lack of) formalization we see in SoPS comes primarily from the incommensurability between their mechanisms and the operators applied to them.
Questions about physical systems are formulated at nearly the same level and in nearly the same language as is used to formulate the purported mechanisms for those systems. The degree of formalization is high because we've reduced the language of mechanisms and questions down to continuous (or discretized continuous) spacetime, fields, particles and their properties, etc. In contrast, in SoPS, it is too difficult to use that same language to express the questions and system mechanisms. The logical depth is too great to formulate, say, "anger" in terms of, say, quarks. So, we hunt around for languages with which to express SoPS, born of partially-baked "ontologies" from Freud, Jung, Hobbes, Locke, Keynes, Maslow, etc. But the apparent complexity is not just (or at all, in my opinion) a consequence of the not-fully-formal languages. It's a consequence of using different languages for the questions/measures from that used for the mechanisms. The degree of mismatch between the language in which the operator is formulated and the language in which the hypothetical mechanisms are formulated is what leads to the apparent complexity. I say _apparent_ because it's easy to confuse complication with complexity. Complexity, in my view, requires intra-system operators formulated with intra-system languages that are incommensurate with the language of the most fundamental mechanisms, where the result of applying these operators is part of the mechanism. So, complexity is the result of intra-system operators formulated in a language that doesn't match the language expressing the mechanism, producing a part of the mechanism, i.e. a causative cycle with lexical mismatch between some parts of the cycle.*+ So, even once we get all SoPS languages formalized (to the extent we have non-well-founded set theory formalized), as long as we don't reduce it all to a kind of "bottom turtle" language (which may not even be possible), they'll exhibit complexity. I.e. multiple models are required for complex systems because "complex" means "formulated in multiple models". [grin] Ha! Justificationists Unite! [*] Note that this is subtly different from Russell Standish's definition of "emergence", which doesn't seem to require the circularity. However, I'm not quite a Rosenite in that I believe circularity (causal closure) is necessary but not sufficient. The lexical mismatch is also necessary. [+] Also note that the concept of "level" doesn't apply, here, either, as in Russ Abbott's "solution" to the problem of "emergence", because it involves an impredicative definition where the macro generates the micro and the micro generates the macro. ... or, similarly, interfaces implement implementations implement interfaces... ;-) Thus spake Jochen Fromm circa 09-09-20 04:03 AM: > In Physics, energy, mass, force and momentum are abstract > terms, too, but they have a concrete mathematical meaning. > We model physical processes as interactions among > variables. Unless we don't use mathematical equations > like F=ma, the terms remain unreal, abstract and vague. > > In Sociology and Psychology it is much harder to > describe the systems with mathematical equations. > Instead of using equations, it is more useful to explain > the systems by ABM, as Macy and Willer describe > in their article "FROM FACTORS TO ACTORS: > Computational Sociology and Agent-Based Modeling". > > It would be interesting to try a shift from factors to actors > in Psychology as well. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ 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
