Although you're repeating what I'd said earlier about relying on a more vernacular sense of "complex", we have to admit something you've yet to acknowledge. (I realize that the things I've said in this thread have been mostly ignorable. So, it's reasonable that they've been missed.) First, circular reasoning is used all the time in math. So, it is not the bug-a-boo logicians claim it to be. Again, Maturana & Varela, Rosen, Kaufmann, et al have all used it to valid and sound effect.
Second, your "interact more closely with one another than they do with entities outside the set" is nothing but _closure_. Or if I can infer from the lack of response to my broaching the term, we could use "coherence" or some other word. And that means that your working definition is not naive. It does rely on an intuition that many of us share. But in order for you to know what you're talking about, you have to apply a bit more formality to that concept. On 06/06/2017 07:20 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Dear Eric and Steve, and the gang, > > > > When I first moved to Santa Fe on Sabbatical 12 years ago, I was merely 67, > and there was a chance, just a chance, that I might become expert enough in > complexity science and model programming to deal with you guys on a somewhat > equal footing. But that never happened, and, now, it is too late. I am > amazed by the intricacy of your discussion and the broad reach of your > thought. There is really little more than I can do then wish you all well, > and back out of the conversation with my head bowed and my hat clasped to my > chest. > > > > Before I leave this conversation, I would like to offer the dubious benefits > of what expertise I do have, which concerns the perils of circular reasoning. > I come by that expertise honestly, through years of struggling with the odd > paradox of evolutionary biology and psychology, that neither field seems > every to quite get on with the business of explaining the design of things. > When George Williams famously defined adaptation as whatever natural > selection produces he forever foreclosed to himself and his legions of > followers, the possibility of saying what sort of a world an adapted world > is, what the products of natural selection are like. One of you has pointed > out that this is an old hobby horse with me, and suggested, perhaps, that > it's time to drag the old nag to the glue factory. But I intend to give it > one last outing. > > > > So, I have a question for you all: Do you guys know what you are talking > about?! Now I DON’T mean that how it sounds. I don’t mean to question your > deep knowledge of the technology and theory of complexity. Hardly. What I > do mean to ask is if, perhaps, you may sometimes lose sight of the > phenomenon you are trying to explain, the mystery you hope to solve. Natural > selection theory became so sophisticated, well-developed and intricate that > its practitioners lost track of the phenomenon they were trying to account > for, the mystery they were trying to solve. We never developed a descriptive > mathematics of design to complement our elaborate explanatory mathematics of > natural selection. Until we have such a descriptive system, natural > selection theory is just a series of ad hoc inventions, not a theory subject > to falsification but “a metaphysical research program” as Popper once > famously said, which can always be rejiggered to be correct. Is there a > risk of an analogous problem in complexity science? You will have to say. > > > > So, I will ask the question again: Do you guys know what you are talking > about?! What is complexity?? If the answer you give is in terms of the > deeply technical, causal language of your field, there is a danger that you > have lost sight of what it is you are trying to account for. And here a > little bit of naivety could be very helpful. Naivety is all I have to offer, > I will offer it. Whatever complexity might be, it is the opposite of > simplicity, no? It is in that spirit that I propose a working definition of > complexity with which to explore this thread’s question: “Are any > non-biological systems complex?” > > > > An object is any collection or entity designated for the purposes of > conversation. > > > > A system is a set of objects that interact more closely with one another than > they do with entities outside the set. > > > > A system is complex if the objects that compose it are themselves systems. > > > > Only when complex systems have been clearly defined, is it rational to ask > the question, “Are any natural systems complex?” Now you may not like my > definition, but I think you will agree that once it is accepted, the answer > to the question is clearly, “Yes!” > > > > Take hurricanes. Is a hurricane composed of thunderstorms? > Clearly, Yes. Are thunderstorms themselves systems. This is a bit less > clear, because the boundaries among thunderstorms in a hurricane may be a bit > hazy, but if one thinks of a thunderstorm as a convective cell -- a column of > rising air and its related low level inflow and high level outflow – then a > thunderstorm is definitely a system, and a hurricanes are made up of them. > Hurricanes may also display an intermediate system-level, a spiral band, > which consists of a system of thunderstorms spiraling in toward the > hurricane’s center. Thus, a hurricane could easily be shown to be a > three-level complex system. > > > > Notice that this way preceding saves all the intricate explanatory apparatus > of complexity theory for the job of accounting for how hurricanes come about. > Now we can ask the question, What kinds of energy flows (insert correct > terminology, here) occur in all complex systems? Notice also, that this > procedure prevents any of us from importing his favorite explanation for > complex systems into their definition, guaranteeing the truth of the > explanation no matter what the facts might be, and rendering the theory > vacuous. . > > > > One last comment. When I wrote that perhaps we might inquire of the system > whether it is complex or not, I left myself wide open to be misunderstood. I > meant only to say, that it is the properties of the system, itself, not its > causes, that should determine the answer to the question. Remember that, in > all matters, I am a behaviorist. If I would distrust your answer concerning > whether you are hungry or not, I certainly would not trust a systems answer > concerning whether it is complex or not. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
