I could hardly have said it better. If people want to progress with understanding the complexity of natural systems, though, it is necessary to understand that any given state of any natural system is a product of an evolutionary process with a beginning, middle and an ending that fits the deceptively simple but marvelously useful 'bump on a curve' model. To frame one's understanding in terms of a system's continual evolving development from beginning to end provides a great many advantages. It's an excellent 'listening device' for structural reorganization in real things, a completely valid map for ordering our data on the process, a great signal generator to alert you when your model is missing something and decisions need to be made. The damn trouble, of course, is that we're still attached to the successful experience of science in describing nature as if it was following our equations... and that when you study natural systems (meaning individual real things) you find something much more like the opposite! Rules are still handy for us to connect before and after without needing to speculate on what happens in-between, but in the situations where what happens in-between matters, we need a new explanatory method. Mine is to refer to the things themselves rather than to a substitute based on my own very limited view. It may seem an odd approach, or be unobvious how it becomes a versatile and reliable tool, but at least you can probably see how it's a completely detailed specification for things that are far too complex to describe, i.e. 'go look'. My short paper for IEEE in June is shaping up to be a discussion of how to switch back and forth between the two paradigms of explanation to get the advantages of both. I'm delighted some interest in individual systems finally seems to be developing, but also note that this and the other new ways of understanding the complex behavior of our world are coming up at the time when our civilization is rapidly making its world unmanageably complex. We are definitely playing catch-up. One hump we have to get over is the tendency of people to feel that it brings their motives into doubt to ask whether multiplying our solutions could also be multiplying the problems. Being self-critical has always been rare I suppose. This particular kind of avoidance is a perennial bind I find in talking with people at all levels in all professions, and my own solution for how to not be overwhelmed by doubt seems impossible to apply. For myself I just drop my guard and look at *everything*. Other people will have to invent their own I suppose. -- Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > From: > http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108364&org=NSF&from=news > > "Natural systems, for example, provide stunning examples of effective > communication, complex computation, efficient signaling, adaptive > self-organization, and multimodal sensing using small but complex chemical and > physical networks. Studies of such biophysical systems will engage physical and > computer scientists, engineers, biologists and social scientists. All will > demand creative approaches in the ultimate convergence of the physical, bio-, > nano-, info-, neuro-, and cognitive sciences." > > -Steve > > --- -. . ..-. .. ... .... - .-- --- ..-. .. ... .... > Stephen.Guerin at Redfish.com > www.Redfish.com > 624 Agua Fria Street, Santa Fe, NM 87501 > mobile: (505)577-5828 > office: Santa Fe, NM (505)995-0206 / London, UK +44 (0) 20 7993 4769 > > > ============================================================ > 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 > > > > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |