|
Author
|
Topic: Complex systems and the kitchen sink
|
complex
Member
Member # 259
|
posted 24. June 2002 23:45
The moderator has encouraged us to come up with a positive statement regarding "complex systems". I would like to do that by pointing to the applicability of that term in the universe under investigation.
The descriptive phrase "complex system" appears to me to be like saying "rich man". If a man has a penny is he rich? Apparently not. If you give a man that is not rich, another penny, will he be rich? Apparently not. So by induction, we can never create a rich man. And yet we do have people that insist to us that they are rich.
We say that a system is complex because apparently there are systems that are not complex (i.e. poor). So for example we say that a frog is a complex (rich) system but a rock is not (or would some here not say that?). We need to build up a few minerals from a rock (poor person) and organize them (add a a few pennies) before we have a frog (a rich man)
But is a rock really not complex? It consists (usually) of multiple minerals. Each one of those minerals consists of a particular combination of particles, either molecular or atomic and then in a crystal formation or in a lattice or in a random order. Each one of those atoms consists of a well-formed nucleus with a particular number of neutrons and protons and an exact set of matching "cloud" electrons at particular and distinct potential levels surrounding the nucleus. Each of those elementrary particles is held together by strong nuclear forces of very specific bounds and strength and "inside" of those particles are further subatomic particls such a quarks (three or two in number) and perhaps further levels of refinement...etc. etc. etc.
At a higher levels, that rock with the minerals was formed under very specific environmental conditions which interacted with the specific energy of the sun and the particular density and composition of the atmosphere. Some of these mineral formations are quite ...shall I say the word..."complex"...if you have ever visited a mineral museum.
So it seems to me that "complex system" is an arbitrary distinction that might be partitioned differently by a biologist than by a minerologist then by an atmospheric scientist than by an astonomical physicist than by a particle physicist. In fact, I don't see how we can avoid labelling any system under investigation as a "complex system".
For that reason, it may be that limiting complex systems to biology is not really fitting since the universe itself displays hierarchical levels of complexity and that every argument we make with respect to a frog can be made with respect to the river that the frog is in, and the mountain that that river flows on and the molten rock that flows under that mountain and the sun that shines on that mountain and the particles of subatomic particles that are interchanging between sun and frog.
I don't think it is possible to point to any system whatsoever that is not complex, including the kitchen sink!
Unless by complex we really mean intelligent...
[ 25 June 2002, 17:48: Message edited by: complex ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 25. June 2002 00:05
For Dembski, complexity is merely a measure of improbability: i.e., the more improbable it is that natural forces would have caused something, the more complex it is.
Therefore, since we know how nature produces rocks, they are not complex.
Complexity in this sense is quite different from whatever "complex" might mean in everyday language, or what it means in some other technical uses of the word.
Therefore, for Dembski (at least as I interpret him), the real empirical question is whether there is in fact any complexity in the world, because that which the natural world produces with any reasonable probability is by definition not complex.
=====
Now here's an interesting thought (new to me, anyway.) If we assume (as Dembski does) that life, at least in its entirety, has not arisen by purely natural causes (and thus exhibits complexity), and kitchen sinks can not arise without life forms (human beings) arising to build them, kitchen sinks are in fact complex.
Q.E.D. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) (seriously)
IP: Logged
|
|
Leonid Andreev
Member
Member # 282
|
posted 25. June 2002 03:41
Complex,
You have brought about a very important issue. The notion of complexity not only can be attributed to the abiocoen but also to a singular atom, atomic nucleus, etc. A rock crystal druse, too, has an intelligent design. That is to say that, in principle, it would be useful to start with definitions. However, when we say that we would like to buy a Big Mac, we do not have to say, I am going to buy a sandwich made of a round bun cut lengthwise, with a rounded flattened cake of minced meat, mustard, a tomato slice, lettuce, etc. The members of this forum are intelligent enough not to mix up a frog and a rock, and the definition of complexity in terms of philosophy, linguistics, physics, chemistry, etc. is worthwhile trying at this forum. However, problems of the type, How many angels can dance on the point of a needle, should deserve a special forum that would have nothing to do with “complex systems”.
[ 25 June 2002, 03:47: Message edited by: Leonid Andreev ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 25. June 2002 10:32
Complex,
No rock is an island. Reality is an interconnected matrix of matter/energy and of information/intent. I suggest that if the definition of complexity is consistent with information theory then the complexity of the rock is more that its stand-alone reality. It must include the potential interactions with the environment. In particular, the rock’s possible relationships with self-aware organisms should be considered. They are always generators of complexity through their ability to actualize information with intentional responses.
Molten rock flowing miles underground may have a small amount of information that could influence life from warmth near the earth’s surface. However, the lava in the magma chamber in Pompeii, just before eruption, has a higher potential for complexity. Just look at the information that is available today from the interaction of that material and the folks it encountered. The excavation of that rock in recent times has shared specific data, encoded in a cultural context, that has added significant depth to our knowledge of ancient civilization. Maybe we could call it rock solid information.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 25. June 2002 10:39
Complex,
I think you are right in pointing out that complexity is not, in and of itself, a very useful basis for describing or analyzing systems. Rather than an absolute property that is useful for analyzing any type of system, complexity is useful in analyzing and comparing dynamic systems. Complexity is particularly valuable in analyzing a type of dynamic system called teleological systems. Complexity is, I would argue, a particularly valuable concept in the scientific analysis of biological systems because biological systems can be model, analyzed, explained, and simulated in terms of teleological causation or teleological systems. This interpretation is consistent with the following concepts and definitions.
As a starting point, it is useful to note that in mathematics, complexity is measured, defined or quantified as the inverse of probability. A system would be assigned a complexity of 4 if the probability that the system has its existing form is 1 in 4.
This suggests that complexity is a relative rather than an absolute property of system. Complexity refers to the relationship between the current form of a system and the number of possible forms a system can or could take.
The concept of complexity is useful or applicable in the analysis of dynamic or changeable systems. The complexity of a dynamic system is defined as, the number of possible forms divided by ( 1= the number of current forms).
Finally, the concept of complexity is particularly useful or applicable in the analysis of purposeful or teleological systems where complexity is measured or defined as ((the number of possible forms) divided by (the number of adaptive form(forms compatible with survival))).
A teleological or purposeful system can be defined as 1)a system that can have or be transformed into a number of different forms, 2)a system where some of the forms(called adaptive forms) are more likely to result in some goal than other forms, and 3)there exists a process or processes to change the system from non-adaptive to adaptive forms.
In order to scientifically model, simulate and analyze a life form as a teleological system, you need to be able to precisely define 1) the set of possible forms, 2)the set of adaptive forms, 3)the goal or purpose that defines the difference between an adaptive and non-adaptive form, and 4)the process or processes which change the system from non-adaptive to adaptive forms. A testable scientific model of the change process would constitute a testable scientific theory of evolutionary or adaptive change.
In this type of application, complexity combined with measures of required speed, defines the level of difficulty associated with keeping a teleological system in an adaptive state. Intelligence, in this same context, is the force or power needed to keep the teleological system in an adaptive state.
It is interesting to note that the NDG RM&NS is, with a few modifications, an attempt to model genetic change using a teleological system. DNA appears to provide a basis for defining possible forms, adaptive forms are defined by the range of forms existing in a species, the goal is survival or survival of the fittest and the change process is RM&NS.
The strength of NDG, IMO, is that it is the first formal attempt to model life forms as a teleological system. The basic flaws with NDG, are that 1)it uses a seriously flawed definition of possible genetic forms, 2)it dramatically underestimates both the complexity of biological systems and the force or intelligence needed to maintain an adaptive state, 3)it proposed an entirely inadequate change mechanism, and 4)it failed to formulate the change process in a predictive/testable format.
To return to your original comments, I agree that complexity is not a stand alone concept. I would suggest that the primary benefit/use of complexity is in the scientific analysis of dynamic and teleological systems. This is in turn important because biological systems are, or can be modeled as teleological systems. Modeling and simulating biological systems as teleological is not new. The NDG is arguably the first serious attempt at the formal development of such a model.
IP: Logged
|
|
Danpech
Member
Member # 163
|
posted 04. July 2002 01:49
complex,
Although it is true that the idea of 'rich man' cannot be defined by x number of pennies (there is no numerical cut-off point), the idea need not be entirely subjective.
A man who can barely stay alive from one day to the next is most certainly not rich (even if he owns what amounts to half of todays world but must pay that much for his bills every day just to keep from dying in a world that costs a lot just to live). The cut-off point is not measured in objects, but in the ability of the person to live conveniently with the resources he has.
The idea of (the) complexity (of life that makes it life) may have a like reality.
IP: Logged
|
|
Elend
Member
Member # 326
|
posted 15. July 2002 08:25
It seems to me that there is little agreement over what complexity, dynamic complexity, order and organization mean. I thought it would be constructive to come up with some definitions that can be put in a FAQ or something like that. Here are some definitions I came accross while
browsing ISCID.
1) (Dembski, warren_bergerson) complexity is the improbability of a certain state. [In some sense this seems to be linked with the entropy of a system.] First this may only make sense if we compare states of the same system, not when comparing two systems. In comparing coin flips with die casts would result in die systems having higher complexity. Secondly, this much dependent on the probability distribution. For some reason uniform distribution is assumed in most cases when someone talks about probability as a measure of complexity. On the same line, the state variables are assumed to be independent.
2) (a more interesting definition by Richard Johns, in Dynamical Complexity and Regularity in Archive) irregularity implies dynamic complexity / the amount of information required to specify an object. In other words the longer the description of an object, the more complex it is. It looks a bit like Kolmogorov algorithmic complexity, yet not quite. It is actually closer to 1) than it appears since the complexity seems to be the (im)probability of a given program to produce a certain state from a random state. For some reason this program, representing the actual laws of physics, is assumed to be unique (in my understanding), when in fact could be any finite combination of physical laws. It also seems unnecessary to require an initial random state since it can be reduced to a simple, non random state by a very simple program.
3) it is often argued that complexity means order or organization (somehow against 2.). Moreover order is often mistaken for organization, when order is framework dependent and subjective.
I think it would really help to clearly define the important terms used on ISCID. Or maybe they were and I couldn't find the right page.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic