http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Definition-of-Complexity-tp522229p522231.html
Interesting paper Russell but I don't think I get it yet. Could you clarify
fields, not just one). For example, I can calculate a specific heat capacity
route - and both descriptions work (i.e. give the right answer). Does this
>
> Have you read my paper "On Complexity and Emergence"? I wrote it not
> to propose new definitions of complexity or emergence, but rather to
> explain that some rather old ideas on the subject actually do work,
> and show how the many varied and disparate attempts are related to
> each other, and also why people get so confused on the topic. In fact
> I tried to explain that emergence had a well-defined definition on a
> radio chat show back in 2002, but got gazumped by the "we can't define
> emergence, but we know it when we see it" from one of the other
> panelists. It was a bit of an eye-opener for me as to how radio science
> shows
> work :)
>
> Since I never considered the ideas in the paper to be original, I have
> been enormously surprised at the citation popularity of the paper.
>
> Its not a big paper, so its worth a read. As always, I appreciate
> comments...
>
> Cheers
>
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 09:56:11PM -0600, Joseph L. Breeden wrote:
> >
> > I'm usually very quiet on this group. I almost always follow the
> > discussions and often look up the references, but I must say that you've
> > hit on a topic that has been bothering me for a decade. I did my thesis
> > work applying chaos theory to astrophysical systems (about 15 years
> > ago). It was always critically important that we could define what a
> > chaotic system was, we had statistical tools for showing that a system
> > was probably chaotic according to the scientific definition, and there
> > was a rapidly growing body of mathematical literature (not all of which
> > I could follow) providing a theoretical basis.
> >
> > Complexity theory troubles me because it is treated like pornography. "I
> > know it when I see it." I remember a brief discussion around the launch
> > of the Journal of Complexity (I think it was that one), where someone
> > asked, "Don't we need a definition of complexity to have a journal of
> > complexity?" They were rebuffed by the editors with the comment that
> > "the submitting authors will create the definition".
> >
> > I am sympathetic to the difficulty in defining complexity, but I have
> > always felt that the lack of a clear definition is the primary thing
> > holding back complexity theory. With chaos theory, if someone publishes
> > a book on "chaos theory in literary review of the renaissance" (don't
> > laugh), we have tools to point out that they are abusing a
> > mathematically grounded scientific term (even if the choice of the word
> > "chaos" is partly responsible for the abuses). In complexity, I lack the
> > tools to go to the author of a book on "complexity theory in business
> > management" and discuss whether it is being used properly or the author
> > is just stealing a term for purposes of marketing.
> >
> > So, this is where I am out of date. At this point, do you all consider
> > chaos theory to be a subset of complexity? (I have my doubts, since
> > three bodies in orbit are chaotic, but are they "complex"?) Owen listed
> > some useful statistics to compute to identify chaos theory, but are any
> > of these or the Reynolds number really viewed as a definition of
> > complexity? (Robert is pursuing this question and I'm glad to read it.)
> > Do you believe that a definition (verbal or mathematical) of complexity
> > now exists which would allow a practitioner to confirm that a system is
> > "complex"? Again, I'm showing how long ago I worked in this area, but
> > complexity always seemed to be defined in terms of "emergence", which
> > also had a troubling definition -- along the lines of "something we
> > didn't expect". Again very bad.
> >
> > I've asked too many questions for this kind of forum, but if a seminal
> > paper has come along in the last decade which resolves all this, I would
> > greatly appreciate a reference.
> >
> > Thanks much, and I'm sorry if I've stepped on any toes. I tend to go
> > stomping about without my glasses rather often.
> >
> > Joe Breeden
> >
> > ============================================================
> > 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>
> --
> *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
> is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
> virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
> email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
> may safely ignore this attachment.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
> Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au
> Australia
>
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks> International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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>
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060724/6786f6ef/attachment.html