THE WORLD IS COMPLEX: HOW TO DISTINGUISH COMPLEXITY FROM COMPLICATION

1. THE WORLD IS COMPLEX:  HOW TO DISTINGUISH COMPLEXITY FROM COMPLICATION D. C. Mikulecky Professor EmeritusandSenior Fellow Center for the Study of Biological ComplexityVirginia Commonwealth University

2. WHAT I HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH • PROVIDE A UNIQUE, WORKABLE CONCEPT OF COMPLEXITY • MAKE A CLEAR DISTICTION BETWEEN THE REAL WORLD AND THOSE FORMAL THINGS WE DO TO TRY TO MODEL IT • SHOW HOW THE FORMAL DESCRIPTION OF THE REAL WORLD REDUCES IT TO SIMPLE MECHANISMS • EXPLAIN THE DIFFICULTY INHERENT IN THIS EPISTEMOLOGY • SHOW THAT THIS DEFINITION CAN BE IGNORED, BUT NOT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF KNOWLEDGE

3. CAN WE DEFINE COMPLEXITY? Complexity is the property of a real world system that is manifest in the inability of any one formalism being adequate to capture all its properties. It requires that we find distinctly different ways of interacting with systems. Distinctly different in the sense that when we make successful models, the formal systems needed to describe each distinct aspect are NOT derivable from each other

4. COMPLEXITY VS COMPLICATION • Von NEUMAN THOUGHT THAT A CRITICAL LEVEL OF “SYSTEM SIZE” WOULD “TRIGGER” THE ONSET OF “COMPLEXITY” (REALLY COMPLICATION) • COMPLEXITY IS MORE A FUNCTION OF SYSTEM QUALITIES RATHER THAN SIZE • COMPLEXITY RESULTS FROM BIFURCATIONS -NOT IN THE DYNAMICS, BUT IN THE DESCRIPTION! • THUS COMPLEX SYSTEMS REQUIRE THAT THEY BE ENCODED INTO MORE THAN ONE FORMAL SYSTEM IN ORDER TO BE MORE COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD

5. NATURAL VS FORMAL SYSTEMS • THE REAL WORLD IS COMPLEX • WE HAVE TREATED IT FORMALLY AS IF IT WERE SIMPLE • THE RESULT IS THE “DISCOVERY” OF COMPLEXITY, EMERGENCE,ETC. • THE IDEA IS BEST SEEN USING THE MODELING RELATION

6. THE MODELING RELATION: THE ESSENCE OF SCIENCE • ALLOWS US TO ASSIGN MEANING TO THE WORLD AROUND US • A “MODEL” OF OUR THINKING PROCESS • CAUSALITY IN THE NATURAL SYSTEM IS DEALT WITH THROUGH IMPLICATION IN A FORMAL SYSTEM • THERE IS AN ENCODING OF THE NATURAL SYSTEM INTO THE FORMAL SYSTEM AND A DECODING BACK • WHEN IT ALL HANGS TOGETHER WE HAVE A MODEL

7. THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF HOW WE MAKE MODELS ENCODING NATURAL SYSTEM FORMAL SYSTEM CAUSAL EVENT IMPLICATION DECODING FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM

8. WE HAVE A USEFUL MODEL WHEN AND ARE SATISFACTORY WAYS OF “UNDERSTANDING” THE CHANGE IN THE WORLD “OUT THERE”

9. THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF HOW WE MAKE MODELS ENCODING NATURAL SYSTEM FORMAL SYSTEM CAUSAL EVENT MANIPULATION DECODING FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM

10. WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE MODELING RELATION FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM MANIPULATION CAUSAL EVENT FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM

11. WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE MODELING RELATION FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM MANIPULATION FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM

12. SCIENCE REDUCED THE WORLD TO SIMPLE MECHANISMS • THE USUAL SCIENTIFIC PICTURE OF REALITY IS A MECHANISM • DEFICIENT IN CAUSAL RELATIONS • FRAGMENTABLE TO ATOMS AND MOLECULES • NOT “GENERIC” BUT TREATED AS IF THEY WERE

13. COMPLEXITY • REQUIRES A CIRCLE OF IDEAS AND METHODS THAT DEPART RADICALLY FROM THOSE TAKEN AS AXIOMATIC FOR THE PAST 300 YEARS • OUR CURRENT SYSTEMS THEORY, INCLUDING ALL THAT IS TAKEN FROM PHYSICS OR PHYSICAL SCIENCE, DEALS EXCLUSIVELY WITH SIMPLE SYSTEMS OR MECHANISMS • COMPLEX AND SIMPLE SYSTEMS ARE DISJOINT CATEGORIES

14. COMPLEX NO LARGEST MODEL WHOLE MORE THAN SUM OF PARTS CAUSAL RELATIONS RICH AND INTERTWINED GENERIC ANALYTIC  SYNTHETIC NON-FRAGMENTABLE NON-COMPUTABLE REAL WORLD SIMPLE LARGEST MODEL WHOLE IS SUM OF PARTS CAUSAL RELATIONS DISTINCT N0N-GENERIC ANALYTIC = SYNTHETIC FRAGMENTABLE COMPUTABLE FORMAL SYSTEM COMPLEX SYSTEMS VS SIMPLE MECHANISMS

15. WHY IS ORGANIZATION SPECIAL? BEYOND MERE ATOMS AND MOLECULES • IS THE WHOLE MORE THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS? • IF IT IS THERE IS SOMETHING THAT IS LOST WHEN WE BREAK IT DOWN TO ATOMS AND MOLECULES • THAT “SOMETHING” MUST EXIST

16. WHAT IS ORGANIZATION? DICTIONARY DEFINITION: NOUN: 1. THE ACT OR PROCESS OF BEING ORGANIZED 2.THE CONDITION OR MANNER OF BEING ORGANIZED (ALSO ASSOCIATION OR SOCIETY AND ITS PERSONNEL)

17. TO ORGANIZE DICTIONARY DEFINITION: VERB: 1. TO CAUSE OR DEVELOP AN ORGANIC STRUCTURE 2. TO ARRANGE OR FORM INTO A COHERENT UNITYOR FUNCTIONING WHOLE, TO INTEGRATE 3. TO ARRANGE ELEMENTS INTO A WHOLE OF INTERDEPENDENT PARTS

18. NOUN OR VERB OR ADJECTIVE? • AN ORGANIZED DESK • AN ORGANIZED CORPORATION • AN ORGANIZED AUTOMOBILE • AN ORGANIZED FROG • AN ORGANIZED ECOSYSTEM

19. WHAT MAKES BIOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION UNIQUE? • SELF-REFERENCE • CONTINGENCY • PARALLEL DISTRIBUTION • MAPPINGS ARE MANY TO MANY RATHER THAN ONE TO ONE • CAUSALITY IS INTERTWINED • CATABOLISM AND ANABOLISM ARE BOTH IMPORTANT • MECHANISMS ARE SPECIAL

20. EVEN IN THE WORLD OF MECHANISMS THERE ARETHE SEEDS OF COMPLEXITY THEORY • THERMODYNAMIC REASONING • OPEN SYSTEMS THERMODYNAMICS • NETWORK THERMODYNAMICS

21. THE NATURE OF THERMODYNAMIC REASONING • THERMODYNAMICS IS ABOUT THOSE PROPERTIES OF SYSTEMS WHICH ARE TRUE INDEPENDENT OF MECHANISM • THEREFORE WE CAN NOT LEARN TO DISTINGUISH MECHANISMS BY THERMODYNAMIC REASONING

22. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? • FORMALISMS HAVE LIMITS (GÖDEL) • THEREFORE ONE FORMALISM IS NOT ENOUGH • MECHANISTIC FORMALISMS ARE INADEQUATE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES, IN PARTICULAR CHANGES IN ORGANIZATION

23. THE RELATIONAL APPROACH TO A COMPLEX REALITY • FOCUS ON THE ORGANIZATION • DEVELOP A SET OF FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS WHICH CAPTURE THAT ORGANIZATION • UTILIZE THE CAUSAL RELATIONS RESULTING FROM ANSWERING “WHY?”

24. FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS • MUST POSSESS ENOUGH IDENTITY TO BE CONSIDERED A “THING” • MUST BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE PROPERTIES FROM LARGER SYSTEMS TO WHICH IT MAY BELONG • ITS FORMAL IMAGE IS A MAPPING f: A -----> B • THIS INTRODUCES A NEW KIND OF “DYNAMICS” : RELATIONAL

25. THE RELATIONAL DEFINITION OF INFORMATION • SCIENCE HAS ASKED “HOW?” AND AS A RESULT HAD A MECHANISTIC DEFINITION OF INFORMATION • THIS HAS INHERENT PROBLEMS SINCE IT CAN NOT DEAL WITH SEMANTICS AND SELF-REFERENCE • WE ASK “WHY?” AND ARE IMMEDIATELY FORCED TO DEAL WITH CAUSAL ENTAILMENT • THE RESULT IS PROFOUND IN THAT WE NOW DEAL WITH THE ESSENCE OF THAT “SOMETHING” THAT MAKES THE WHOLE MORE THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS-THE MISSING LINK IN REDUCTIONISM • WE NOW ARE FORCED TO DEAL WITH CLOSED LOOPS OF CAUSALITY AND OTHER IMPREDICATIVITIES (SORRY RUSSEL)

26. THE FOUR BECAUSES: WHY A HOUSE? • MATERIAL: THE STUFF IT’S MADE OF • EFFICIENT: IT NEEDED A BUILDER • FORMAL: THERE WAS A BLUEPRINT • FINAL: IT HAS A PURPOSE

27. METABOLISM/REPAIR SYSTEMS • BASED ON INPUT/OUTPUT REPRESENTATIONS OF SYSTEMS • MORE ABSTRACT • ALLOW CAUSALITY TO BE REPRESENTED • LEAD TO NEW INFORMATION • ARE BASED ON RECOGNITION THAT BUILDING UP AND TEARING DOWN ARE PART OF THE LIFE PROCESS

28. THE RELATIONAL REPRESENTATION • INVOLVES MAPPINGS • METABOLISM IS f: A  B • A REPRESENTS METABOLITES WHICH CAN ALSO EXCHANGE WITH THE ENVIRONMENT • B REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF METABOLISM • f IS A MAPPING FROM A TO B

29. THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS • A IS THE MATERIAL CAUSE OF B (DOTTED ARROW) • f IS THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF B • OTHER COMPONENTS FOR REPAIR AND REPLICATION COME IN BECAUSE THESE COMPONENTS HAVE A FINITE LIFETIME: CATABOLISM AND ANABOLISM OR “TURNOVER”

30. f  A B ROSEN’S RELATIONAL MODEL OF THE ORGANISM

31. ORGANISMS • ARE COMPLEX SYSTEMS • ARE CLOSED TO EFFICIENT CAUSE • ARE AUTOPOIETIC UNITIES

32. THE NEW VITALISM • LIVING SYSTEMS POSESS A TYPE OF ORGANIZATION WHICH NON-LIVING SYSTEMS DO NOT • THIS BIOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION WILL ALWAYS DEFY FORMALIZATION-IT HAS NON-COMPUTABLE COMPONENTS