http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/When-is-something-complex-tp525080p525099.html
I agree it's hard to deal with a particular situation like your's with a descriptive definition (metrics). So, ***based on an idea
of complexity as an inherent property of a situation***, we design any ***heuristical*** metrics that are part of this situation
and work (!) there. (Are all such metrics "isomorphic"? I don't think so.) It's fine. The problem is when we are inside of the
situation and have a trouble to handle it. The best thing to do would be to step up on a higher level of observation. And I think
the completely detached observation and descriptive metrics like Kolmogorov's (maybe on this level there are many such metrics but I
think all of them are isomorphic in some sense) are the top of this ***hierarchy***. From this, if the situation is not "incomplete"
/ prohibited, we can step down into it again and try to construct new metrics, keeping in mind the descriptive ones. =Again, it
seems it is about the hierarchy of views and definitions / metrics that are ***agreeable to the result***. ? --Mikhail
> Could you say why those points are 'problems'? It seems to me that a
> situated "explanatory" complexity (as opposed to "descriptive") works
> fine (I'm not necessarily suggesting it's "better") so long as you have
> situated the equivalences sufficiently. Ascribed (interesting word) can
> be just as crisp as inherent, though ascribed tends to be more
> topological than numeric, I think.
>
> For example, a system of equivalences could be organized as sets of
> Natural Transformations (ie paths of explanations commute), thereby
> enabling selection choices. Different situating signals would enable
> differing varieties of such choices, which we could then measure and
> talk about in terms of 'compressibility' (how many choices and what is
> their character), concurrency (how and when to navigate choices), and so
> on.
>
> Regardless of how seriously one takes this particular example, the point
> here is that for some interesting problem formulations, we would be
> working in some "complexity-based" set of multiple numeric and
> topological metrics, not just "is it complex or not".
>
> Carl
>
> Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
>>> However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the
>>> system
>>>
>>
>> The problems with this statement are: 1) what I comprehended as the complex thing some time ago, now maybe it's not so
>> completely.
>> Like walking in a big city: for a child (a less sophisticated, less evolved, conceptual mind) the task is too complex to handle
>> properly, but after living here for a number of years it's the most natural and simplest thing in the world. So, does
>> "complexity"
>> belong to this situation? or does it reflect our ability to comprehend it? 2) Some things are complex to me, but not, for
>> example,
>> to you. ? --Mikhail P.S. "Complexity" may be one of the "archetypes" of our cognition.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 1:51 PM
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ? --Mikhail
>>>>
>>> The problem is whether or not complexity is an inherent property or an
>>> ascribed attribute. If it's an ascribed attribute, then the above is as
>>> good a definition as any... I prefer the concept of logical depth
>>> (primarily temporal aggregation); but that's effectively the same as a
>>> minimal description that works.
>>>
>>> The justification for assuming complexity is an ascribed attribute lies
>>> in parsing the word "complexity". Complexity talks about cause and
>>> effect and the "plaited" threads of cause/effect running through a
>>> system. The more threads there are and the more intertwined they are,
>>> the more complex the system. But, cause and effect are human cognitive
>>> constructs. Hence, complexity is an ascribed attribute of systems and,
>>> hence, can be defined in terms of descriptions and the efficacy of such.
>>>
>>> However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent
>>> property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the system.
>>> That doesn't imply independence from intra-system sub-descriptions (e.g.
>>> one constituent that describes other constituents, making that
>>> description a constituent of the system), only that there need not be a
>>> whole system description for it to be complex.
>>>
>>> If it's true that complexity is an inherent property, then definitions
>>> like "minimal description that works" is either irrelevant or is just a
>>> _measure_ of complexity rather than a definition of it. And if that's
>>> the case, it brings us back to complexity being an ascribed attribute
>>> rather than an inherent property. =><=
>>>
>>> - --
>>> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com>>> I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty
>>> enough to want to force it upon anyone. -- H. L. Mencken
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org>>>
>>> iD8DBQFG8WGdZeB+vOTnLkoRAgJyAKDT//zvtrt/7o3R34hax7ozoiPYxgCgxi1c
>>> Vi8FwXZ8Y6femw37O6aJzAc=
>>> =lEhK
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> 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>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ============================================================
> 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>