THE COMPLEXITY OF SCIENCE AND THE SCIENCE OF COMPLEXITY: HOW TO SURVIVE IN A SELF-REFERENTIAL WORLD
34
THE COMPLEXITY OF SCIENCE AND THE SCIENCE OF COMPLEXITY: HOW TO SURVIVE IN A SELF-REFERENTIAL WORLD DON MIKULECKY PROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGY VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY http://views.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/
description
THE COMPLEXITY OF SCIENCE AND THE SCIENCE OF COMPLEXITY: HOW TO SURVIVE IN A SELF-REFERENTIAL WORLD. DON MIKULECKY PROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGY VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY http://views.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/. WHAT IS COMPLEXITY?. TOO MANY DEFINITIONS, SOME CONFLICTING - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of 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
