http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Definition-of-Complexity-tp522229p522250.html
I think you're right on point. There is a lot of theory without
complex systems theory movements). Maybe because this one came more out
of physics the fuzzy language has a physics twang. There's that magical
notion of "the edge of chaos" for example. I think it has some
player is. I have some examples of things sort of like that, and it's
680 Ft. Washington Ave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Joseph L. Breeden
> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 11:56 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] Definition of Complexity
>
>
>
> 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 So, this is where I am out of date.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>
>