Friam

Young but distant gallaxies

Classic

List

Threaded

77 messages Options

1234

Phil Henshaw-2

Re: Young but distant gallaxies

Well, there is a very particular and specific reason for that (humorous) way of saying it being very truthful. It’s that environments thrive by housing diverse *differently organized* things that independently exploit each other’s differences. If you don’t see the cognitive dissonances, you’re simply not going to see much of what’s happening at all. That’s a genuine major reason why science has trouble understanding, or just even seeing, the emergence and interactions of things that make different sense, our habit of pasting over it by *making sense* of anything that is inconsistent with our models. I think that’s very close to Rosen’s complaint and observation that science is limited in the kinds of questions it can ask by avoiding divergent sequences in mathematics.

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 5:21 PM
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies

Thanks Phil. I also consider myself slightly mad (hopefully interesting at times); who wouldn't be living in the present state of the world. When I was in the UN, we used to say, when speaking of the complexities of developing nations, "if you are not confused, you are not thinking clearly."

And as an environmentalist, I also tend to analyze without resort to mathematics and look for trends and observed emergence.

cheers Paul

**************
Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)

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

Phil Henshaw-2

Re: Young but distant gallaxies

In reply to this post by glen ep ropella

Maybe there are two sides to reductionism, the 'good' reduction of a problem
that locates the true central solution, and the 'bad' reduction of the
environment to fit the solution you prefer.

The latter makes the 'hammer solution' interpret everything as a nail. The
former notices what's not a nail too... That our society is organized to
hammer the earth and its resources at exponential rates, always adding %'s
to the physical effect as its central organizing principle and is not
watching for the difference between growing opportunity for one thing and
growing conflicts for others, is a case in point. If you're not attentive
to the presence of cognitive dissonances in the environment, well, then you
won't see them erupting.

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 8:28 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
>
> John F. Kennison wrote:
> > I have been trying to figure out what my position on reductionism
> > might be, but I am running into problems. Does reductionism mean a
> > belief that the best strategy is always to analyze complex things in
> > terms of simpler components (with, I presume, a small number of
> > irreducible parts)? Or is it a belief that everything in nature is
> > nothing more than a sum of simple components?
>
> Well, I'll jump in. I can't say what "reductionism" actually means.
> But I can say what I mean when I say it and how I interpret it when I
> hear it.
>
> When I say it, I mean that reductionism is a _fetish_ for or zealous
> commitment to reduction/analysis, beyond the practical.
>
> When I _hear_ the word, though, I tend to make a less extreme
> inference.
> Reductionism and reductionist seem to be used to refer to the very
> analytic processes we revere and reward in all our most successful
> humans. And although it's often slung as an epithet, I tend to think
> it's a compliment, albeit a back-handed one. It seems to have become a
> term we use for careful thinkers. You only get called "reductionist"
> if
> you keep nit-picking until everyone's mad at you. [grin] Up until that
> point, reduction is always considered a pretty good method. When
> people
> are happy with it, they call it "parsimony" or "elegance" or some other
> nice word. Then when you piss them off, they call it "reductionism".
>
> That's why I usually end up saying something like "a little bit
> reductionist", which is a silly phrase if you put too much emphasis on
> the denotation... kinda like being a little bit pregnant. Stick to
> reduction for a little too long, and you're "a little bit
> reductionist".
> Commit your entire existence to it and you're a zealot.
>
> As usual, people tend to draw stark and false dichotomies. Nobody's
> actually a reductionist and nobody's actually a holist. We just like
> to
> pidgeon-hole people and their statements because it makes our lives
> easier.
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

glen ep ropella

Re: Young but distant gallaxies

Phil Henshaw wrote:
> Maybe there are two sides to reductionism, the 'good' reduction of a problem
> that locates the true central solution, and the 'bad' reduction of the
> environment to fit the solution you prefer.

I like the basic sentiment; but I wouldn't like the logical conclusion.
Reduction is neither good nor bad, only appropriate or inappropriate
for any given context.

Even in the seemingly bad case where one myopically hyper-reduces some
problem and/or solution so that important externalities are ignored,
whether such reduction is good or bad depends on your viewpoint. In
microcosm, from the individual who benefits in the very short-term, it's
good. In the "mesocosm", where the environment embedding that
individual has to compensate (or cannot compensate) for the
hyper-reduction, it's bad. But then in the macrocosm, the individual
probably created a lot of "waste" that is seen by some other set of
processes as a food source, which makes it good again.

In the end, reduction is just a method and, when used, it'll either
achieve your ends or it won't. The trick is generating reliable
estimates for when it will or won't achieve particular ends. And that's
why I like the basic sentiment but not the value judgments of "good" or
"bad".

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com

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

Re: Young but distant gallaxies

In reply to this post by Jack Leibowitz

Jack,

Jack Leibowitz wrote:
> I meant quite the opposite of discrediting reductionism. It has been the

Ok thanks, that's what I wanted to know :-)

> This is a large story, in which, as aa scholar in the philosophy of
> sciences, you need no instruction, I'm sure.

yup

Cheers,
Günther

--
Günther Greindl
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna
[hidden email]

Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/
Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/

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

Re: Young but distant gallaxies

In reply to this post by glen ep ropella

Glen,

I think you are spot on with this:

> it's a compliment, albeit a back-handed one. It seems to have become a
> term we use for careful thinkers. You only get called "reductionist" if
> you keep nit-picking until everyone's mad at you. [grin] Up until that

I am very pro reductionist, because that is actually also the context in
which I encounter the word: when people _really_ want to know what's
going in, other people who are fine with "wishy-washy" tend to call them
"reductionist" and mean it in a derogatory sense; although it's actually
a compliment.

Reductionism is about understanding what's going on under the hood. I
don't know why people oppose this.

Cheers,
Günther

--
Günther Greindl
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna
[hidden email]

Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/
Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/

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

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Young but distant gallaxies

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Günther Greindl <[hidden email]> wrote:

Glen,

Reductionism is about understanding what's going on under the hood. I
don't know why people oppose this.

Here's one reason (attached).

Reductionists have a well-earned reputation for performing blind over-simplifications in their often miss-guided attempts to analyze complex systems.

The ego that allows one to assume that non-humans can be reductively explained as automata has already demonstrated a mind-numbing blindness to the complexities of the world around him. The 360 years since Descarte have not changed human nature much: there are still plenty of people who view the world in similar simplisctic and egotistic manner.

--Doug

--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

reductionist.png (107K) Download Attachment

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Young but distant gallaxies

In reply to this post by Günther Greindl

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Günther Greindl <[hidden email]> wrote:

Glen,

Reductionism is about understanding what's going on under the hood. I
don't know why people oppose this.

Here's one reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

Reductionists have a well-earned reputation for performing blind over-simplifications in their often miss-guided attempts to analyze complex systems.

The ego that allows one to assume that non-humans can be reductively explained as automata has already demonstrated a mind-numbing blindness to the complexities of the world around him. The 360 years since Descarte have not changed human nature much: there are still plenty of people who view the world in similar simplisctic and egotistic manner.

--Doug

--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Günther Greindl

Re: Young but distant gallaxies

Doug,

> Reductionists have a well-earned reputation for performing blind
> over-simplifications in their often miss-guided attempts to analyze
> complex systems.

Viewing this as a failure is grossly misunderstanding science.

Science works by proposing theories (=mechanisms) of how something
works. They get more complex with time, then simpler (on a different
level of abstraction) - undulating waves of success and failure.

But saying that reductionism is bad because some posited mechanical
models are false is clearly wrong.

> The ego that allows one to assume that non-humans can be reductively
> explained as automata has already demonstrated a mind-numbing blindness
> to the complexities of the world around him. The 360 years since
> Descarte have not changed human nature much: there are still plenty of
> people who view the world in similar simplisctic and egotistic manner.

Why is reductionism simplistic and egotistic? What would a
non-simplistic and non-egotistic explanation be?

And since when are theories like QED simple, despite being reductionist?

*confused* Günther

--
Günther Greindl
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna
[hidden email]

Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/
Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/

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

Pamela McCorduck

Re: Young but distant gallaxies

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Ah, Vaucanson's famous duck! Thanks, Doug.

Reductionism has had its wonderful big wins, and may continue to have them. But much in the way of phenomena cannot be "reduced." These are the phenomena that complexity is taking a crack at. The sciences of complexity are barely a quarter-century old. Don't be impatient.

I am reading the new translation of "War and Peace" (highly recommended, though the 5.5 lb book decided me to wait until I could download it on my Kindle--but I digress). One of the fascinating things is to watch Tolstoy struggle with the causes of war--he knows those causes can't be reduced to the usual stuff of Napoleon challenged and the Russians got their back up. He shows why this is simply not so. But he lacks the tools to grapple with why wars do happen--he cites multiple events, multiple possibilities (insofar, he was well ahead of his time). But then as now, how do you connect those multiple events from one level of the system up to the next? He didn't have the concept of emergence (and we are describing phenomena with that term, not explaining them). But he has the intelligence to see that wars cannot be reduced to simple causes and effects.

Pamela

"People in general do not willingly read if they can have anything else to amuse them."

Dr. Samuel Johnson

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Young but distant gallaxies

In reply to this post by Günther Greindl

Günther,

One of the foremost historical reductionists (Descarte) twice demonstrated blind egotism in his "Reductionist Duck" postulate, as follows:

1) that reductionism did not apply to humans, and
2) that when applied to non-humans, the non-human could be reduced to an automata.

I'm not sure which I find most disappointing: the fact of the egoism amply demonstrated by this postulate, or the blind acceptance of it by so many other modern "reductionists".

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, though. I mean after all, this is the same gene pool (evolved 360 years) that elected George W. Bush as our United States president.

Twice.

As to your question regarding a non-egoistic explanation: recognition of the fact that we simply do not yet understand enough about the complexities of organic intelligence to be making stupid, simplistic reductionist claims about its nature would be a good start...

Cheers,

--Doug

(BTW, why are so many Santa Feans sitting in front of their computers today, instead of being outside enjoying this glorious fall weather? I plan on immediately correcting this situation, myself.)

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Günther Greindl <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug,

Why is reductionism simplistic and egotistic? What would a
non-simplistic and non-egotistic explanation be?

Phil Henshaw-2

Re: Young but distant gallaxies - too good to ever ask about

In reply to this post by glen ep ropella

Glen,
Right, it does quite depend on the context. That's why learning how to see
the context without looking through the lens of your own or someone else's
clumsy reduction is important. That'll hide all the discoveries your new
questions today might make if you were not filtering all your data to
exclude the evidence!

I also agree that high degrees of simplification isn't the problem. There
is no one 'ideal' level, except that to not omit a reference to your
original context. In my book, that's really a must. Failing to do so is a
major and persistent source of functional fixation and operational
blindness. I'm happy to extract some small piece of a complex set of
issues to experiment with, as a logic puzzle out of context, to maybe try to
see how a slightly altered version might plug back in to a 'real world'. I
just need to keep my finger on the more complex realities of the situation
too.

The cognitive errors from habitually making decisions out of context are so
extreme we really need to learn how to look for them, though. Take the fact
that the segment of humanity that views adding %'s to their money as an
unqualified good (dodging from how it causes the physical effects it pays
for) has taken over and continues to operate as if it had an infinite world
to expand in. It's a simple appealing reductionist mental rule, thoroughly
institutionalized, still growing in its control of the earth by leaps and
bounds, doing profound lasting harm by making the physical things we rely on
unstable. So... it becomes an 'emergent' 'big surprise' that at growth
limits, with it still multiplying, we have erupting difficulties and
conflicts in every direction.

It would be good if we could see what the systems we are driving are running
into. There are some simple rules for doing that. We should use them.
Things in our picture that are on multiplying autopilot... you'd ask about
first rather than list as being too good to ever ask about...!

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella
> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 3:04 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
>
> Phil Henshaw wrote:
> > Maybe there are two sides to reductionism, the 'good' reduction of a
> problem
> > that locates the true central solution, and the 'bad' reduction of
> the
> > environment to fit the solution you prefer.
>
> I like the basic sentiment; but I wouldn't like the logical conclusion.
> Reduction is neither good nor bad, only appropriate or inappropriate
> for any given context.
>
> Even in the seemingly bad case where one myopically hyper-reduces some
> problem and/or solution so that important externalities are ignored,
> whether such reduction is good or bad depends on your viewpoint. In
> microcosm, from the individual who benefits in the very short-term,
> it's
> good. In the "mesocosm", where the environment embedding that
> individual has to compensate (or cannot compensate) for the
> hyper-reduction, it's bad. But then in the macrocosm, the individual
> probably created a lot of "waste" that is seen by some other set of
> processes as a food source, which makes it good again.
>
> In the end, reduction is just a method and, when used, it'll either
> achieve your ends or it won't. The trick is generating reliable
> estimates for when it will or won't achieve particular ends. And
> that's
> why I like the basic sentiment but not the value judgments of "good" or
> "bad".
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

Phil Henshaw-2

Re: Young but distant gallaxies

In reply to this post by Günther Greindl

Ah yes, I believe in scientific thinking as doing reduction the 'right way'
too, but not without checking. That's then done by having a way to look
for how we're doing it the 'wrong way'. If you don't have the latter the
former can be just self-fulfilling prophecy.

The basic dilemma is that our form of representation for nature captures so
very little of nature's diversity, order, features, dynamics and scales,
etc. That has long been obvious, but we have also simply not been paying
much attention to solving it. I think that 1996 Rosen essay makes the
point nicely, pointing to how science rules out studying the spectrum of
divergent processes by limiting itself to the mathematics of convergent
sequences. http://www.synapse9.com/ref/Rosen_On_Limitations_of_Sci.pdf

Our tools clearly all greatly misrepresent our subject. My trick for
correcting that may look like just a trick till you find it useful, but is
to use representations to point to the individual things we crafted them
from so you can see what they're supposed to represent. Anybody have a
better idea?

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Günther Greindl
> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 1:29 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
>
> Doug,
>
> > Reductionists have a well-earned reputation for performing blind
> > over-simplifications in their often miss-guided attempts to analyze
> > complex systems.
>
> Viewing this as a failure is grossly misunderstanding science.
>
> Science works by proposing theories (=mechanisms) of how something
> works. They get more complex with time, then simpler (on a different
> level of abstraction) - undulating waves of success and failure.
>
> But saying that reductionism is bad because some posited mechanical
> models are false is clearly wrong.
>
>
> > The ego that allows one to assume that non-humans can be reductively
> > explained as automata has already demonstrated a mind-numbing
> blindness
> > to the complexities of the world around him. The 360 years since
> > Descarte have not changed human nature much: there are still plenty
> of
> > people who view the world in similar simplisctic and egotistic
> manner.
>
> Why is reductionism simplistic and egotistic? What would a
> non-simplistic and non-egotistic explanation be?
>
> And since when are theories like QED simple, despite being
> reductionist?
>
> *confused* Günther
>
>
> --
> Günther Greindl
> Department of Philosophy of Science
> University of Vienna
> [hidden email]
>
> Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/
> Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

Re: Young but distant gallaxies

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Doug,

> One of the foremost historical reductionists (Descarte) twice
> demonstrated blind egotism in his "Reductionist Duck" postulate, as follows:

Again, Descartes was at the beginning of science. He wrote after a
thousand years dominion of the Catholic Church in Europe.

Do not hold his errors against the method of reductionism. Errors are
being made, and are currently being made. That has nothing to do with
reductionism, but with the scientific method (and metaphysical
assumptions (which I find of the utmost importance, as they influence
our theory building)).

> I'm not sure which I find most disappointing: the fact of the egoism
> amply demonstrated by this postulate, or the blind acceptance of it by
> so many other modern "reductionists".

Do we have the right to be "disappointed" in the errors of our
ancestors? When I look at the insight of Parmenides or Democritus, for
instance, I can't but be awed with how far they went with so little
data. Who am I to hold their errors against them?

I am far more disappointed about what some modern scientists proclaim,
in an age where not knowing can not so easily be excused.

> As to your question regarding a non-egoistic explanation: recognition
> of the fact that we simply do not yet understand enough about the
> complexities of organic intelligence to be making stupid, simplistic
> reductionist claims about its nature would be a good start...

OK, so in your symbol space reductionism is tied to "stupid" and
"simplistic" - it is hard to argue when the term has so bad connotations
in your mind. Certainly I can't argue in a few words without being
misunderstood.

So I try it this way:

Have you read:
Brian Cantwell Smiths's "On the Origin of Objects"?

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Objects-Bradford-Books/dp/0262692090/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220818482&sr=8-1

While he and I have subtle metaphysical disagreements, his book is well
in accord with the position I hold in most things epistemological and
ontological (I disagree in some of the conclusions he draws).
The book is somewhat of a secret classic in cognitive science/AI,
probably many FRIAMers know it.

A first approach to what reductionism really is and not what some
detractors may hold can be found here (OB post):
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/reductionism.html

As to the "basic level of reality" mentioned in the post above, I think
indeed that there is only one basic level (one world assumption - this
does not mean privileging one level, here I disagree a bit with the OB
post and am more in line with B.Cantwell Smith, but again, the points
are subtle and would lead to far in this little post), and that the way
to reconcile this with explanatory higher levels of abstraction is
simply that some phenomena are better described in higher-level terms
_for us humans_; but what should reality care what is good for humans?

Ontological reductionism is the only serious position IMHO, and all
successes by complexity science actually affirm this position
(computational models etc).

Many FRIAMers, I gather (from reading the list), share a computer
science background. Computer Science has the most wonderful concepts to
understand what reductionism is about.

Think about the hierarchy from electrons to machine language to assembly
to C to higher level languages like JAVA and Python and what have you.
Think about OOP where you model domains with, ideally, the machine not
shining through any more because that would interfere with the modelling.

Surely, nobody supposes that when you model something in OOP a new
causal domain arises apart from the electrons shunting in the hardware.
Ergo ontological reductionism. Again, with the caveat the electrons also
do not enjoy a privileged position.

But that is another matter which I am just developing (so I can't write
about it yet *grin*)

Cheers,
Günther

--
Günther Greindl
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna
[hidden email]

Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/
Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/

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

Orlando Leibovitz

Re: Young but distant gallaxies

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Orlando Here,

Sorry, I may have missed this in another email...also please excuse my ignorance. But could someone please explain in some detail Descarte's reductionist duck postulate. Where would I find it in the writings of Descarte? Thanks much.

O

Douglas Roberts wrote:

Günther,

One of the foremost historical reductionists (Descarte) twice demonstrated blind egotism in his "Reductionist Duck" postulate, as follows:

1) that reductionism did not apply to humans, and
2) that when applied to non-humans, the non-human could be reduced to an automata.

I'm not sure which I find most disappointing: the fact of the egoism amply demonstrated by this postulate, or the blind acceptance of it by so many other modern "reductionists".

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, though. I mean after all, this is the same gene pool (evolved 360 years) that elected George W. Bush as our United States president.

Twice.

As to your question regarding a non-egoistic explanation: recognition of the fact that we simply do not yet understand enough about the complexities of organic intelligence to be making stupid, simplistic reductionist claims about its nature would be a good start...

Cheers,

--Doug

(BTW, why are so many Santa Feans sitting in front of their computers today, instead of being outside enjoying this glorious fall weather? I plan on immediately correcting this situation, myself.)

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Günther Greindl <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug,

Why is reductionism simplistic and egotistic? What would a
non-simplistic and non-egotistic explanation be?
============================================================
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

Orlando Leibovitz

[hidden email]

www.orlandoleibovitz.com

Studio Telephone: 505-820-6183

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Young but distant gallaxies

In reply to this post by Günther Greindl

Günther,

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Günther Greindl <[hidden email]> wrote:

OK, so in your symbol space reductionism is tied to "stupid" and
"simplistic" - it is hard to argue when the term has so bad connotations
in your mind. Certainly I can't argue in a few words without being
misunderstood.

No, I only view some reductionist positions as "stupid" and "simplistic". Decarte's reductionist position regarding non-human animals certainly falls into these two categories, influences of the Catholic church at that time notwithstanding.

I suppose reductionism is one frame of reference that some people must use in order to place their problem into a perspective that allows them to think about it in a way that is comfortable for them.

I have not read "On the Origin of Objects"; I may browse it if I ever have some free time. I did read http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/reductionism.html, and I will say that when I am in a mood to contemplate cosmological issues, I prefer the works of Stephen Weinberg and George Smoot.

Don't get me wrong: I do not totally reject reductionism. Well, actually, I do, as regards to finding any utility in it for myself. But other people seem to swear by it, and I am truly happy for them.

;-}

Cheers,

--Doug

--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Robert Holmes

Re: Young but distant gallaxies

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

<snip>

Don't get me wrong: I do not totally reject reductionism. Well, actually, I do, as regards to finding any utility in it for myself. But other people seem to swear by it, and I am truly happy for them.

;-}

Cheers,

--Doug

No utility? Really? Check out the third para of the wikipedia entry you quoted:

Reductionism does not preclude emergent phenomena but it does imply the ability to understand the emergent in terms of the phenomena from and process(es) by which it emerges.

Sounds an awful lot like your episims and travelsims....

Robert

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Young but distant gallaxies

TRANSIMS & EpiSims.

Yes, a lot of verbiage has been spent extolling the wonders of the "emergent behaviors" demonstrated by those two simulation systems.

I'm pretty sure that none of us who designed & implemented those two applications ever used any reductionist methodologies during the active life cycles of either of those codes.

This afternoon I ran what was, in my estimate, the 1,542'nd EpiSims simulation run that I've done since 1997 when we actually started using the model.

My colleagues and I are currently doing a seasonal (as compared to pandemic) influenza study for New York City.

I'm pretty sure that by now I've managed to develop the ability to understand the emergent in terms of the phenomena from and process(es) by which it emerges. (The italicized are the words you quoted. I don't think I'd ever say anything like that. If I ever do, would someone please just shoot me?)

That said: I'm perfectly happy for those who prefer to view the world through reductionist-colored glasses, but none of the EpiSims or TRANSIMS folks fall into that category, as far as I know. Although a few of them are fairly contentious, and as soon as they discover that I placed them in the anti-reductionist camp, they will loudly proclaim the opposite.

--Doug

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Robert Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

<snip>

Don't get me wrong: I do not totally reject reductionism. Well, actually, I do, as regards to finding any utility in it for myself. But other people seem to swear by it, and I am truly happy for them.

;-}

Cheers,

--Doug

No utility? Really? Check out the third para of the wikipedia entry you quoted:
Reductionism does not preclude emergent phenomena but it does imply the ability to understand the emergent in terms of the phenomena from and process(es) by which it emerges.

Sounds an awful lot like your episims and travelsims....

Robert

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

Steve Smith

Re: Reductionism - was: Young but distant gallaxies

In reply to this post by Orlando Leibovitz

Orlando-

You can find good references in Wikipedia on this topic, including the Descartes references.

Reductionism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Descartes held that non-human animals could be reductively explained as automata — De homines 1662.

Reductionism can either mean (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.[1] This can be said of objects, phenomena, explanations, theories, and meanings.

All -

IMO,
Reductionism(a) is a highly utilitarian approach to understanding complex problems, but in some important cases insufficient. It applies well to easily observable systems of distinct elements with obvious relations operating within the regime they were designed, evolved, or selected for. It applies even better to engineered systems which were designed, built and tested using reductionist principles.   I'm not sure how useful or apt it is beyond that. Some might argue, that this covers so much, who cares about what is left over?... and this might distinguish the rest of us from hard-core reductionists... we are interested in the phenomena, systems, and regimes where such does not apply. This is perhaps what defines Complexity Scientists and Practitioners.

Reductionism(b) is a philosophical extension of (a) which has a nice feel to it for those who operate in the regime where (a) holds well. To the extent that most of the (non-social) problems we encounter in our man-made world tend to lie (by design) in this regime, this is not a bad approach. To the extent that much of science is done in the service of some kind of engineering (ultimately to yield a better material, process or product), it also works well.

Reductionism(b) might be directly confronted by the "Halting Problem" in computability theory.   Reductionism in it's strongest form would suggest that the behaviour of any given system could ultimately be predicted by studying the behaviour of it's parts.   There are certainly large numbers of examples where this is at least approximately true (and useful), otherwise we wouldn't have unit-testing in our software systems, we wouldn't have interchangeable parts, we wouldn't be able to make any useful predictions whatsoever about anything. But if it were fully and literally true, it could be applied to programs in Turing-Complete systems.   My own argument here leads me to ponder what (if any) range of interesting problems lie in the regime between the embarrassingly reduceable and the (non)-halting program.

But to suggest (insist) that *all* systems and *all* phenomenology can be understood (and predicted) simply by reductionism seems to have been dismissed by most serious scientists some while ago.   Complexity Science and those who study Emergent Phenomena implicitly leave Reductionism behind once they get into "truly" complex systems and emergent phenomena.

I, myself, prefer (simple) reductionistic simplifications over (complex) handwaving ones (see Occam's Razor) most of the time, but when the going gets tough (or the systems get complex), reductionism *becomes* nothing more than handwaving in my experience.

- Steve

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

Steve Smith

Re: ductionist Doug

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Doug -

> Don't get me wrong: I do not totally reject reductionism. Well,
actually, I do, as regards to finding any utility in it for myself. But
> other people seem to swear by it, and I am truly happy for them.

From what I know of you (for the rest of the list, Doug and are friends
off-list too), you can be *very* reductionist in your thinking and
approach to problems. You are more likely than anyone I know to reduce
the practice of putting on your pants in the morning to first placing
one foot into one leg, then the other, rather than trying to jump into
them all at once.

On the other hand (if you have read through my treatise submitted a
few moments ago), I believe you to be one of "us" how know when
reductionism applies and when it doesn't. I can imagine that what you
might mean is that "reductionism does not apply to any of the truly
interesting problems I work on".
> I'm pretty sure that by now I've managed to develop the /ability to
> understand the emergent in terms of the phenomena from and process(es)
> by which it emerges./ (The italicized are the words you quoted. I
> don't think I'd ever say anything like that. If I ever do, would
> someone please just shoot me?)
Should I use one of your own guns or steal one from from one of our
died-in-the-wool NRA (National Reductionists Association) member friends?

- Steve

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

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: ductionist Doug

Steve,

I think there would be a certain reductionist symmetry if you were to use one of my own guns to shoot me, don't you?

;-}

--Doug

(And how do you know that I even wear pants around the house, anyhow? I telecommute, after all. Now try to get *that* image out of your head...)

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug -

> Don't get me wrong: I do not totally reject reductionism. Well,
actually, I do, as regards to finding any utility in it for myself. But
> other people seem to swear by it, and I am truly happy for them.

From what I know of you (for the rest of the list, Doug and are friends
off-list too), you can be *very* reductionist in your thinking and
approach to problems. You are more likely than anyone I know to reduce
the practice of putting on your pants in the morning to first placing
one foot into one leg, then the other, rather than trying to jump into
them all at once.

On the other hand (if you have read through my treatise submitted a
few moments ago), I believe you to be one of "us" how know when
reductionism applies and when it doesn't. I can imagine that what you
might mean is that "reductionism does not apply to any of the truly
interesting problems I work on".
> I'm pretty sure that by now I've managed to develop the /ability to
> understand the emergent in terms of the phenomena from and process(es)
> by which it emerges./ (The italicized are the words you quoted. I
> don't think I'd ever say anything like that. If I ever do, would
> someone please just shoot me?)
Should I use one of your own guns or steal one from from one of our
died-in-the-wool NRA (National Reductionists Association) member friends?

- Steve

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

1234