the complexity of science and the science of complexity: how to survive in a self-referential world

THE COMPLEXITY OF SCIENCE AND THE SCIENCE OF

COMPLEXITY: HOW TO SURVIVE IN

A SELF-REFERENTIAL WORLDDON MIKULECKY

PROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGYVIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH

UNIVERSITYhttp://views.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/

WHAT IS COMPLEXITY? TOO MANY DEFINITIONS, SOME

CONFLICTING OFTEN INTERCHANGED WITH

“COMPLICATED” HAS A REAL MEANING BECAUSE IT IS

BEING USED SO FREQUENTLY THAT MEANING ITSELF IS COMPLEX(THIS

IS SELF-REFERENTIAL: HOW CAN WE DEFINE “COMPLEX” USING “COMPLEX”?)

THE CENTURY OF COMPLEXITY?

Complexity Digest 2001.10 March-05-2001

"I think the next century will be the century of complexity."

Stephen Hawking

CIRCULARITY (SELF-REFERENCE) CAUSES PROBLEMS FOR LOGIC AND SCIENCE I AM A CORINTHIAN ALL CORINTHIANS ARE LIARS OR “THE STATEMENT ON THE

OTHER SIDE IS FALSE”-ON BOTH SIDES

CAN WE GET RID OF SELF-REFERENCE, THAT IS, CIRCULARITY? IT HAS BEEN TRIED IT FAILED THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO “GO

AROUND” IT – THAT IS TO IGNORE CASES WHERE IT POPS UP

WHAT IF IT IS VERY COMMON?

SELF-REFERENCE, CIRCULARITY AND THE GENOME REPLICATION

TRANSCRIPTION

HOMEOSTASIS

WHERE DO CELLS COME FROM?

DNA? GENES? PROTEINS? OTHER CELLS? SPONTANEOUS GENERATION?

THE CELL THEORY

CELLS COME FROM OTHER CELLS

WHAT IS SCIENCE? ALSO HAS MANY DEFINTIONS SOME OF THESE ARE IN

CONFLICT SCIENCE IS A BELIEF

STRUCTURE SCIENCE OF METHOD VS

SCIENCE OF CONTENT

WHY IS SCIENCE A BELIEF STRUCTURE? WHAT IS THE PROCESS BY

WHICH WE “KNOW” THINGS ABOUT THE WORLD?

WE ALL MAKE MODELS IN ORDER TO FUNCTION IN THE REAL WORLD

THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF HOW WE MAKE

MODELS

NATURAL SYSTEM

FORMAL SYSTEM

NATURAL SYSTEM

FORMAL SYSTEM

ENCODING

DECODING

CAUSALEVENT

IMPLICATION

WE HAVE A USEFUL MODEL WHEN

ARE SATISFACTORY WAYS OF “UNDERSTANDING”THE CHANGE IN THE WORLD “OUT THERE”

THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF HOW WE MAKE

MODELS

NATURAL SYSTEM

FORMAL SYSTEM

NATURAL SYSTEM

FORMAL SYSTEM

ENCODING

DECODING

CAUSALEVENT

MANIPULATION

WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE MODELING RELATION

NATURAL SYSTEM

FORMAL SYSTEM

NATURAL SYSTEM

FORMAL SYSTEM

CAUSALEVENT

MANIPULATION

WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE MODELING RELATION

NATURAL SYSTEMFORMAL SYSTEM

NATURAL SYSTEM

FORMAL SYSTEM

MANIPULATION

THE SCIENTIFIC MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF HOW

WE DO SCIENCE

NATURAL SYSTEM

FORMAL SYSTEM

NATURAL SYSTEM

FORMAL SYSTEM

FORMULA

EXPERIMENT MANIPULATION DATA FITTING

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY DEFINITIONS OF COMPLEXITY? SCIENTISTS FOCUS ON THE

FORMAL DESCRIPTION RATHER THAN THE REAL WORLD

THE REAL WORLD IS COMPLEX FORMAL SYSTEMS COME IN

VARYING SHADES AND DEGREES OF COMPLEXITY OR COMPLICATION

WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE

MODELING RELATION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION

INEVITABLE:

THE “REAL WORLD” REQUIRES MORE THAN ONE “FORMAL SYSTEM” TO MODEL IT (THERE IS NO “UNIVERSAL MODEL”)

WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE

MODELING RELATION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION

INEVITABLE:

WE MORE OR LESS FORGOT THAT THERE WAS AN ENCODING AND DECODING

WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE

MODELING RELATION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION

INEVITABLE:

WE ARE TOO AFRAID OF “BELIEFS” (SCEPTICISM IS “IN”)

WE DEVELOPED THE MYTH OF “OBJECTIVITY”

WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE QUESTION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION

INEVITABLE: THE MACHINE METAPHOR TELLS

US TO ASK “HOW?” REAL WORLD COMPLEXITY

TELLS US TO ASK “WHY?”

THE FOUR BECAUSES: WHY A HOUSE? MATERIAL: THE STUFF IT’S MADE OF EFFICIENT: IT NEEDED A BUILDER FORMAL: THERE WAS A BLUEPRINT FINAL: IT HAS A PURPOSE

WHY IS “OBJECTIVITY” A MYTH? (OR: WHY IS SCIENCE

A BELIEF STRUCTURE) THE FORMAL SYSTEM DOES NOT AND

CAN NOT TELL US HOW TO ENCODE AND DECODE. (MODELING IS AN ART!)

THE FORMAL SYSTEM DOES NOT AND CAN NOT TELL US WHEN THE MODEL WORKS, THAT IS A JUDGEMENT CALL EVEN IF OTHER FORMALISMS ARE EMNLISTED TO HELP (FOR EXAMPLE: STATISTICS)

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MAKE “COMPLEXITY THEORY” NECESSARY? (WHAT HAS “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” FAILED TO EXPLAIN?) WHY IS THE WHOLE MORE THAN

THE SOME OF THE PARTS? SELF-REFERENCE AND

CIRCULARITY THE LIFE/ORGANISM PROBLEM THE MIND/BODY PROBLEM

WHY IS THE WHOLE MORE THAN THE SOME OF THE PARTS? BECAUSE REDUCING A REAL SYSTEM

TO ATOMS AND MOLECULES LOOSES IMPORTANT THINGS THAT MAKE THE SYSTEM WHAT IT IS

BECAUSE THERE IS MORE TO REALITY THAN JUST ATOMS AND MOLECULES (ORGANIZATION, PROCESS, QUALITIES, ETC.)

SELF-REFERENCE AND CIRCULARITY THE “LAWS” OF NATURE THAT

TRADITIONAL SCIENCE TEACHES ARE ARTIFACTS OF A LIMITED MODEL

THE REAL “RULES OF THE GAME” ARE CONTEXT DEPENDENT AND EVER CHANGING- THEY MAKE THE CONTEXT AND THE CONTEXT MAKES THEM (SELF-REFERENCE)

EXAMPLE: THE LIFE/ORGANISM PROBLEM

LIFE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAWS OF PHYSICS

PHYSICS DOES NOT PREDICT LIFE LIVING CELLS COME FROM OTHER

LIVING CELLS AN ORGANISM MUST INVOLVE

CLOSED LOOPS OF CAUSALITY LIFE DOES INVOLVE PURPOSE

EXAMPLE: THE MIND/BODY PROBLEM

HOW CAN THE MIND MODEL ITSELF?

AM I CONSCIOUS? HOW DOES THE BRAIN PRODUCE

CONSCIOUSNESS, SELF AWARENESS, ETC.?

CAN WE DEFINE COMPLEXITY? Complexity is the property of a real world

system that is manifest in the inability of any one formalism being adequate to capture all its properties. It requires that we find distinctly different ways of interacting with systems. Distinctly different in

the sense that when we make successful models, the formal systems needed to describe each distinct aspect are NOT

derivable from each other

The Mexican sierra [fish] has "XVII-15-IX" spines in the dorsal fin. These can easily be counted ... We could, if we wished, describe the sierra thus: "D. XVII-15-IX; A. II-15-IX," but we could see the fish alive and swimming, feel it plunge against the lines, drag it threshing over the rail, and even finally eat it. And there is no reason why either approach should be inaccurate.

Spine-count description need not suffer because another approach is also used. Perhaps, out of the two approaches we thought there might emerge a picture more complete and even more accurate that either alone could produce. -- John Steinbeck, novelist, with Edward Ricketts, marine biologist (1941)

CONCLUSIONS THE REAL WORLD IS COMPLEX THE WORLD OF “SIMPLE MECHANISMS” IS A

SURROGATE WORLD CREATED BY TRADITIONAL SCIENCE

WE ARE AT A CROSSROADS: A NEW WORLDVIEW IS NEEDED

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH ATTEMPTS TO PROGRESS

YOUR CRYSTAL BALL MAY BE AS GOOD AS MINE OR BETTER

POST SCRIPT WE LIVE IN A WORLD DOMINATED BY

COMPUTERS MOST COMPLEXIFIERS BELIEVE THAT

COMPLEXITY IS SOMETHING WE CAN DEAL WITH ON THE COMPUTER

THIS NOTION OF COMPLEXITY FOCUSES ON THE MECHANICAL ASPECTS OF THE REAL WORLD

WHAT MAKES THE REAL WORLD COMPLEX IS ITS NON-COMPUTABILITY