Friam

When is something complex

Classic

List

Threaded

7 messages Options

Nick Thompson

When is something complex

Alfredo,

Good question. In fact, the question of the day, for the Hayes talk.

Mysterious non linear effects in Hayes data leading to the conclusion good
hearted efforts in one direction lead to the opposite result.

I guess "mysterious non-linearity" is a good clue that the phenomenon is
complex.

Nick .

> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:12:09 -0500
> From: Alfredo CV <agbioinfo at gmx.net>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] **today ** Lecture Wed Sep 12 12:30p: Jim Hayes -
> Hedging Complex and Chaotic Private Health Insurance Markets and the
> Uninsured
> To: stephen.guerin at redfish.com, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <46EC1269.7080008 at gmx.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Hi
>
> Of course it?s impossible to me to know details of the speeches you
> usually have. In the distance I suppose that the first purpose of each
> one of these speeches is to know and evaluate a broad type of cases
> where complexity is used to understand phenomena. I wonder what makes
> some phenomena suitable to be studied with a "complex" approach. What
> must somebody take in consideration to decide that is studying a complex
> phenomena?
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Alfredo CV
>
>
>
>

Mikhail Gorelkin

When is something complex

Just two thoughts: 1) it seems that complexity is a more fundamental category than linearity / non-linearity, which are parts of a
sophisticated ***formal*** system; 2) I assume there are types of complexity (and, therefore, many - I mean really many - types)
that cannot be expressed in any formal system (beyond linearity / non-linearity). Something like G?del's theorem. ? --Mikhail

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]>
To: <friam at redfish.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex

> Alfredo,
>
> Good question. In fact, the question of the day, for the Hayes talk.
>
> Mysterious non linear effects in Hayes data leading to the conclusion good
> hearted efforts in one direction lead to the opposite result.
>
> I guess "mysterious non-linearity" is a good clue that the phenomenon is
> complex.
>
> Nick .
>
>
>
>
>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:12:09 -0500
>> From: Alfredo CV <agbioinfo at gmx.net>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] **today ** Lecture Wed Sep 12 12:30p: Jim Hayes -
>> Hedging Complex and Chaotic Private Health Insurance Markets and the
>> Uninsured
>> To: stephen.guerin at redfish.com, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
>> Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>> Message-ID: <46EC1269.7080008 at gmx.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Of course it?s impossible to me to know details of the speeches you
>> usually have. In the distance I suppose that the first purpose of each
>> one of these speeches is to know and evaluate a broad type of cases
>> where complexity is used to understand phenomena. I wonder what makes
>> some phenomena suitable to be studied with a "complex" approach. What
>> must somebody take in consideration to decide that is studying a complex
>> phenomena?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Alfredo CV
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>

Günther Greindl

When is something complex

Hi,

Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
> Just two thoughts: 1) it seems that complexity is a more fundamental category than linearity / non-linearity,
>which are parts of a sophisticated ***formal*** system;

How would you imagine a complex system which is not non-linear? I would
say that linear = proportianal relationships; non-linear -> arbitrary
functional relationships.

Not even non-linear would then imply _no_ relationships - so no complex
system.

2) I assume there are types of complexity (and, therefore, many - I mean
really many - types)
> that cannot be expressed in any formal system (beyond linearity / non-linearity).

You mean systems that can't even be modeled computationally? I would not
equate non-linear systems with those one can model with diff. eq. in
closed form.

>Something like G?del's theorem. ?

How that?

Regards,
G?nther

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> To: <friam at redfish.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex
>
>
>> Alfredo,
>>
>> Good question. In fact, the question of the day, for the Hayes talk.
>>
>> Mysterious non linear effects in Hayes data leading to the conclusion good
>> hearted efforts in one direction lead to the opposite result.
>>
>> I guess "mysterious non-linearity" is a good clue that the phenomenon is
>> complex.
>>
>> Nick .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:12:09 -0500
>>> From: Alfredo CV <agbioinfo at gmx.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] **today ** Lecture Wed Sep 12 12:30p: Jim Hayes -
>>> Hedging Complex and Chaotic Private Health Insurance Markets and the
>>> Uninsured
>>> To: stephen.guerin at redfish.com, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
>>> Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID: <46EC1269.7080008 at gmx.net>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Of course it?s impossible to me to know details of the speeches you
>>> usually have. In the distance I suppose that the first purpose of each
>>> one of these speeches is to know and evaluate a broad type of cases
>>> where complexity is used to understand phenomena. I wonder what makes
>>> some phenomena suitable to be studied with a "complex" approach. What
>>> must somebody take in consideration to decide that is studying a complex
>>> phenomena?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Alfredo CV
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ============================================================
> 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

Mikhail Gorelkin

When is something complex

Hi G?nther,

That article in Wiki about Kolmogorov complexity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity answers all these questions
perfectly - better than me :-( ?

Regards,

--Mikhail

----- Original Message -----
From: "G?nther Greindl" <[hidden email]>
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex

Hi,

Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
> Just two thoughts: 1) it seems that complexity is a more fundamental category than linearity / non-linearity,
>which are parts of a sophisticated ***formal*** system;

How would you imagine a complex system which is not non-linear? I would
say that linear = proportianal relationships; non-linear -> arbitrary
functional relationships.

Not even non-linear would then imply _no_ relationships - so no complex
system.

2) I assume there are types of complexity (and, therefore, many - I mean
really many - types)
> that cannot be expressed in any formal system (beyond linearity / non-linearity).

You mean systems that can't even be modeled computationally? I would not
equate non-linear systems with those one can model with diff. eq. in
closed form.

>Something like G?del's theorem. ?

How that?

Regards,
G?nther

--
G?nther Greindl
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna
guenther.greindl at univie.ac.at
http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/

Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/
Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org

============================================================
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

Günther Greindl

When is something complex

Hi Mikhail,

> That article in Wiki about Kolmogorov complexity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity answers all these questions
> perfectly - better than me :-( ?

I am perfectly aware of Kolmogorov Complexity - but it does not answer
the questions posed below, unfortunately.
And I would be specifically interested in _your_ answers/ thoughts :-)

> Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
>> Just two thoughts: 1) it seems that complexity is a more fundamental category than linearity / non-linearity,
> >which are parts of a sophisticated ***formal*** system;

K-Complexity is also a formal system.

I would like to uphold my questions from before:

How would you imagine a complex system which is not non-linear? I would
say that linear = proportianal relationships; non-linear -> arbitrary
functional relationships.

Not even non-linear would then imply _no_ relationships - so no complex
system.

> 2) I assume there are types of complexity (and, therefore, many - I mean
> really many - types)
>> that cannot be expressed in any formal system (beyond linearity / non-linearity).

You mean systems that can't even be modeled computationally? I would not
equate non-linear systems with those one can model with diff. eq. in
closed form.

Addendum: the question really is if properties of formal systems
(uncomputability etc) apply to real world complex systems - maybe they
are all computable (albeit intractable)?

>> Something like G?del's theorem. ?

How that?

Best,
G?nther

--
G?nther Greindl
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna
guenther.greindl at univie.ac.at
http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/

Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/
Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org

Mikhail Gorelkin

When is something complex

Hello G?nther,

I think: 1) There are real things that are ***indescribable entirely***. For example, thoughts and emotions of a thirteen years old
girl before her first date (I mean completely uncontrollable) :-) 2) Writing them down (in English) would be considered as a
***formal description*** of the system (Dostoevsky, Joyce, Proust). It's ***adequate*** if we: read a book more then once,
quote from it, think about it much later, look for new books of the author, formulate our own emotions in the book's terms, etc.
Is such a system liner / non-linear? How about poetry of Brodsky, Tsvetaeva, Rilke ( not all :-)? How about systems "defined" in
pictures of French Impressionists and Dali and in movies like Matrix Trilogy? Musical compositions? Take Dostoevsky. Is it
complex? Yes, of course - they still publish new insights and reward them! 3) Large distributed systems like all publications
about love in English. How about the same publications in the Internet with all references and cross-references?...
Examples like these are beyond the threshold (L) in Chaitin's incompleteness theorem (no rules without exceptions for a rich
system). 4) I assume that you mean "centralized computability" based on computational models constructed by a person or
a small connected group. It wouldn't be too complex to cope with real complexity (Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety). More,
there is only one universal thing: it is reality itself. I don't see how computability is equal to it! (Newton probably thought
about analytics as universal formalism.)

Your thoughts?

Warm wishes,

Mikhail

----- Original Message -----
From: "G?nther Greindl" <[hidden email]>
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex

Hi Mikhail,

> That article in Wiki about Kolmogorov complexity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity answers all these questions
> perfectly - better than me :-( ?

I am perfectly aware of Kolmogorov Complexity - but it does not answer
the questions posed below, unfortunately.
And I would be specifically interested in _your_ answers/ thoughts :-)

> Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
>> Just two thoughts: 1) it seems that complexity is a more fundamental category than linearity / non-linearity,
> >which are parts of a sophisticated ***formal*** system;

K-Complexity is also a formal system.

I would like to uphold my questions from before:

How would you imagine a complex system which is not non-linear? I would
say that linear = proportianal relationships; non-linear -> arbitrary
functional relationships.

Not even non-linear would then imply _no_ relationships - so no complex
system.

> 2) I assume there are types of complexity (and, therefore, many - I mean
> really many - types)
>> that cannot be expressed in any formal system (beyond linearity / non-linearity).

You mean systems that can't even be modeled computationally? I would not
equate non-linear systems with those one can model with diff. eq. in
closed form.

Addendum: the question really is if properties of formal systems
(uncomputability etc) apply to real world complex systems - maybe they
are all computable (albeit intractable)?

>> Something like G?del's theorem. ?

How that?

Best,
G?nther

--
G?nther Greindl
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna
guenther.greindl at univie.ac.at
http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/

Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/
Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org

============================================================
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

Günther Greindl

When is something complex

Dear Mikhail,

the response is somewhat late but I have had a lot to do :-( :

> I think: 1) There are real things that are ***indescribable entirely***. For example, thoughts and emotions of a thirteen years old
> girl before her first date (I mean completely uncontrollable) :-)

I agree that the human brain is a complex system - probably the most
complex system we know of at the moment - but this does not mean that it
is indescribable - maybe we simply do not know yet. (See also last
paragraph)

>2) Writing them down (in English) would be considered as a
> ***formal description*** of the system (Dostoevsky, Joyce, Proust).
>It's ***adequate*** if we: read a book more then once,
> quote from it, think about it much later, look for new books of the author,
>formulate our own emotions in the book's terms, etc.

> Is such a system liner / non-linear?
That is an interesting question - will have to think a bit more :-)

>How about poetry of Brodsky, Tsvetaeva, Rilke ( not all :-)? How about systems "defined" in
> pictures of French Impressionists and Dali and in movies like Matrix Trilogy? Musical compositions? Take Dostoevsky. Is it
> complex? Yes, of course - they still publish new insights and reward them!

The symbolisms themselves (text, frequency of music) are simple - the
complexity arises in the human brain (of author and then of viewer) -
problem therefor reduced to 1) :-)

>3) Large distributed systems like all publications
> about love in English. How about the same publications in the Internet with all references and cross-references?...
> Examples like these are beyond the threshold (L) in Chaitin's incompleteness theorem (no rules without exceptions for a rich
> system).

The Theorem about L is also only a provability result. It does not say
that it is impossible to find a description, only impossible to prove it.

>4) I assume that you mean "centralized computability" based on computational models constructed by a person or
> a small connected group. It wouldn't be too complex to cope with real complexity (Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety). More,
> there is only one universal thing: it is reality itself. I don't see how computability is equal to it! (Newton probably thought
> about analytics as universal formalism.)
>
> Your thoughts?

Actually I was thinking of the universe being the output of a
computation - if that were the case, it could not be more powerful than
computation (it would suffer from G?del itself)-(of course, problems in
the universe could be intractable _in_ the universe, because we would
need the whole system (=reality) to perfectly simulate it - here I agree
with you). But if the universe is the output of a computation, then we
could compute every finite system - therefor also the girl's brain.

Kind Regards and sorry for taking so long,
G?nther

--
G?nther Greindl
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna
guenther.greindl at univie.ac.at
http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/

Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/
Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org