Posted by
Michael Agar on
Jun 19, 2007; 2:41pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Seminal-Papers-in-Complexity-tp524047p524074.html
This thread is sliding around some, but still I?d like to add this
overlong comment in case it?s useful. The emails have been good brain
food. The problem I keep worrying about in my own work is, I use many
core concepts metaphorically because they work at the human
organizational scale in powerful and useful ways that I believe
respect their scientific origins but at the same time allow the human/
social world to see and understand and act differently. But I also
want to be clear on those origins, to know and describe when and
where and how I?m stretching the concepts. The problem I have is, up
close the conceptual basis of ?complexity? more often than not turns
to mush. Mea culpa much of the time, I?m sure, but look what happened
to reductionism in this thread. Even Wikipedia has several entries. I
don?t know how much credence to give them, but here they are:
0.1 Varieties of reductionism
0.1.1 Ontological reductionism
0.1.2 Methodological reductionism
0.1.3 Methodological individualism
0.1.4 Theoretical reductionism
0.1.5 Scientific reductionism
0.1.6 Set-Theoretic Reductionism
0.1.7 Linguistic reductionism
0.1.8 Greedy reductionism
0.1.9 Eliminativism
And now emergence. I?ve heard it used in several ways. Way back when,
we used it in anthropology as a form of methodological defense
against the usual social science model of everything planned in a
modular way before the research started. Emergence was shorthand for
?I can?t tell you what I?m going to do until I get there and learn
what?s worth learning and how to learn it.? Then it?s also used more
generally as shorthand for ?surprise,? the presence and nature of
which depends on perspective and prior knowledge of observer. Then
it?s used for the end result of a deterministic process that has
characteristics unlike the elements of that process, like water out
of hydrogen and oxygen. Then it?s used for the need for different
concepts and methods for different levels of a phenomenon, like
phonology, morphology and syntax in linguistics. Then it?s used for
unexpected evolutionary and historical transitions, like the Cambrian
explosion. Probably many other uses if we sampled a lot of texts and
conversations. Probably some of the sources cited already in the
thread help with the problem. I need to read them.
Maybe the field has outgrown the concepts that got it started. If
true, that?s probably a good sign.
So I think I?ll work on nonlinearity for awhile. Russell writes:
?most of my readers understand perfectly well what a linear function
is: one that obeys f(a*x+b*y) = a*f(x)+b*f(y).? That?s clear,
resembles the definition in the Wikipedia entry. But then he writes :
?If neither * or + are defined for your objects of discussion, you
cannot talk about (non-)linearity.? That won?t do. I have to be able
to talk about nonlinear effects of, say, mental health policy on
local programs in a qualitative way. I know it makes sense to do so
from experience. Problem is to make it clear what the term means in
that context. If the math won?t do it, something else has to. I?ll
puzzle over the NECSI definition and the opening pages of Strogatz?
book for awhile. So maybe nonlinearity won?t be so easy either.
There?s the famous Einstein quote for inspiration: As far as the laws
of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as
they are certain, they do not refer to reality. Maybe we need a new
nonlinear kind of math. Maybe it exists.
Enough already.
Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070619/1dc20128/attachment.html