Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
References

1 Sources of Complexity in Human Systems

Profile image of Lucio BiggieroLucio Biggiero

1998

Abstract

Complex is a special attribute we can give to many kinds of systems. In a broad sense, it can be taken as synonym of unpredictable. Human systems are affected by several sources of complexity, belonging to three classes: logical, gnosiological and computational, in order of descending restrictivity. Systems belonging to first class are not predictable at all, those belonging to the second class are predictable only through an infinite computational capacity, and those belonging to the third class are predictable only through a trans-computational capacity. Using (also) a dialectical criterion of demarcation, we can distinguish a precise and useful meaning of the word "complexity",different from that of "difficulty". In first class (logical complexity) are two sources of complexity: the pure logical complexity, directly deriving from self-reference and Gödel incompleteness theorems, and the relational complexity, resulting in a sort of indeterminacy principle occu...

Figures (2)
Fig. 1 shows relations between difficulty and three classes of complexity. It is noteworthy that the length describing difficulty is very short compared to that of complexity. It depends on the idea that complex phenmena are the rules and not the exceptions of world. It is particularly true for human systems. Moreover logical complexity is drawn parallel and separated from other two classes, because it is independent from them. In a radical constructivist perspective, any single cognitive system, and, a fortiori, any single human being, is affected by logical complexity, because is a self-referential system. The self- referential loop is due to the capacity of the self to think itself+. Therefore we have already a temporary answer to our initial questions: all human systems are complex systems, at least because they are affected by logical and relational complexity.
Fig. 1 shows relations between difficulty and three classes of complexity. It is noteworthy that the length describing difficulty is very short compared to that of complexity. It depends on the idea that complex phenmena are the rules and not the exceptions of world. It is particularly true for human systems. Moreover logical complexity is drawn parallel and separated from other two classes, because it is independent from them. In a radical constructivist perspective, any single cognitive system, and, a fortiori, any single human being, is affected by logical complexity, because is a self-referential system. The self- referential loop is due to the capacity of the self to think itself+. Therefore we have already a temporary answer to our initial questions: all human systems are complex systems, at least because they are affected by logical and relational complexity.

Related papers

Organized Complexity: Properties, Models and the Limits of Understanding (Havana
John Collier

Complexly organized systems include biological and cognitive systems, as well as many of the everyday systems that form our environment. They are both common and important, but are not well understood. A complex system is, roughly, one that cannot be fully understood via analytic methods alone. An organized system is one that shows spatio-temporal correlations that are not determined by purely local conditions, though organization can be more or less localizable within a system. Organization and complexity can vary independently to some extent, but they are interconnected: organisation requires some complexity, but complexity cannot be maximum in an organized system. I will define complexity and organization more precisely, and show how these definitions imply the above properties. Next I will discuss how organized complexity can be modelled, with an eye to limitations on the tractability of both the models and the modelling process.

View PDFchevron_right
Theory of Complexity
Low Jun Jian
View PDFchevron_right
The challenge of complexity for cognitive systems
Joachim Funke, Cleotilde Gonzalez

Cognitive Systems Research, 2011

Complex cognition addresses research on (a) high-level cognitive processes – mainly problem solving, reasoning, and decision making – and their interaction with more basic processes such as perception, learning, motivation and emotion and (b) cognitive processes which take place in a complex, typically dynamic, environment. Our focus is on AI systems and cognitive models dealing with complexity and on psychological findings which can inspire or challenge cognitive systems research. In this overview we first motivate why we have to go beyond models for rather simple cognitive processes and reductionist experiments. Afterwards, we give a characterization of complexity from our perspective. We introduce the triad of cognitive science methods – analytical, empirical, and engineering methods – which in our opinion have all to be utilized to tackle complex cognition. Afterwards we highlight three aspects of complex cognition – complex problem solving, dynamic decision making, and learning of concepts, skills and strategies. We conclude with some reflections about and challenges for future research.

View PDFchevron_right
Some critical observations on the science of complexity
GIORGIO ISRAEL
View PDFchevron_right
Concept and Definition of Complexity
Russell Standish

2008

The term complexity is used informally both as a quality and as a quantity. As a quality, complexity has something to do with our ability to understand a system or object -we understand simple systems, but not complex ones. On another level, complexity is used as a quantity, when we talk about something being more complicated than another.

View PDFchevron_right
On Complexity
Humberto Mariotti

This is a review of Edgar Morin's book ON Complexity.

View PDFchevron_right
Complexity
Carlos Gershenson

2011

The term complexity derives etymologically from the Latin plexus, which means interwoven. Intuitively, this implies that something complex is composed by elements that are difficult to separate. This difficulty arises from the relevant interactions that take place between components. This lack of separability is at odds with the classical scientific method-which has been used since the times of Galileo, Newton, Descartes, and Laplace-and has also influenced philosophy and engineering. In recent decades, the scientific study of complexity and complex systems has proposed a paradigm shift in science and philosophy, proposing novel methods that take into account relevant interactions.

View PDFchevron_right
The science of complexity: epistemological problems and perspectives
GIORGIO ISRAEL

Science in context, 2005

For several decades now a set of researches from a wide range of different sectors has been developed which goes by the name of "science of complexity" and is opposed point by point to the paradigm of classical science. It challenges the idea that world is "simple." To the reductionist idea that each process is the sum of the actions of its components it opposes a holistic view (the whole is more than the sum of the parts). The aim of the present article is to analyze the epistemological status attributed in the science of complexity to several fundamental ideas, such as those of scientific law, objectivity, and prediction. The aim is to show that the hope of superseding reductionism by means of concepts such as that of "emergence" is fallacious and that the science of complexity proposes forms of reductionism that are even more restrictive than the classical ones, particularly when it claims to unify in a single treatment problems that vary widely in nature such as physical, biological, and social problems.

View PDFchevron_right
A Note on the Difference between Complicated and Complex Systems
Roberto Poli

The distinction between complicated and complex systems is of immense importance, yet it is often overlooked. Decision-makers commonly mistake complex systems for simply complicated ones and look for solutions without realizing that 'learning to dance' with a complex system is definitely different from 'solving' the problems arising from it. The situation becomes even worse as far as modern social systems are concerned. This article analyzes the difference between complicated and complex systems to show that what is at stake is a difference of type, not of degree; (2) the difference is based on two different ways of understanding systems, namely through decomposition into smaller parts and through functional analysis; (3) complex systems are the generic, normal case, while complicated systems are highly distinctive, special, and therefore rare. * Here I use "complexity" with regard to both nonlinear phenomena (complexity proper) and infinite sensibility to initial and boundary conditions (what is usually called "chaos" or "deterministic chaos"). Both are based on an internal machinery of a predicative, algorithmic, i.e. mechanical, formal nature. † The following are some further aspects that a less cursory analysis will have to consider: (1) the "complicated" perspective point tends to work with closed systems, while the "complex" perspective point works with open systems; (2) the former naturally adopts a zerosum framework, while the latter can adopt a positivesum framework; (3) the former relies on firstorder systems, while the latter includes secondorder systems, that is systems that are able to observe themselves (which is one of the sources of their complexity).

View PDFchevron_right
On complexity and emergence
Russell Standish

Arxiv preprint nlin/0101006, 2001

Numerous definitions for complexity have been proposed over the last half century, with little consensus achieved on how to use the term. A definition of complexity is supplied here that is closely related to the Kolmogorov Complexity and Shannon Entropy measures widely used as complexity measures, yet addresses a number of concerns raised against these measures. However, the price of doing this is to introduce context dependence into the definition of complexity. It is argued that such context dependence is an inherent property of complexity, and related concepts such as entropy and emergence. Scientists are uncomfortable with such context dependence, which smacks of subjectivity, and this is perhaps the reason why little agreement has been found on the meaning of these terms.

View PDFchevron_right

References (46)

  1. "Theory of singularities is a broad generalization of research on max. and min. points of functions. The word "bifurcation" is used in a general meaning to indicate any kind of transformation (perestroika) of different entities, due to changes in related parameters. "Catastrophes" are sharp changes which happen as suddenly reaction in a system submitted to a regular variation of external conditions" (Arnold, 1986, pg.22). A fractal is a topologic (algebraic or geometric) object, which emerges in some not derivable functions, that is in functions not integrable, which are those that do not admit tangents. These functions are the rule and not the exception. Fractals have a lot of interesting features, three of which are: 1) self-similarity, that is the replication of the same form at any dimensional scale;
  2. geometric representation (form) of strange attractors in deterministic chaos. See Mandelbrot (1977).
  3. It is called "the three body problem", since it was referred to the interaction between the Sun, Jupiter and the Earth in the Solar System.
  4. Bibliography
  5. Abell D.F., 1980, Defining the Business: the Starting Point of Strategic Planning, Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Alvesson M., 1993, Organizations as Rhetoric: Knowledge-Intensive Firms and the Struggle with Ambiguity, Journal of Management Studies, vol.30, n.6, pg. 997-1017
  6. Alvesson M., Berg P.O., 1992, Corporate Culture and Organizational Symbolism, de Gruyter, Berlin Anderson P.W., Arrow K., Pines D.(Eds.), 1988, The Economy as an Evolving Complex System, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA Arnold V.I., 1986, Catastrophe Theory, Springer Verlag, Berlin
  7. Ashby W.R., 1962, Principles of the Self-Organizing System, in von Foerster, Zopf, 1962; reprinted in Buckley 1968
  8. Ashby R.W., 1963, An Introduction to Cybernetics, Wiley, N.Y.
  9. Atlan H., 1979, Entre le cristal et la fumee, Editions du Seuil, Paris Atlan H., 1987, A tort et a raison, Editions du Seuil, Paris Austin J.L., 1962, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford U.P., Oxford Bateson G., 1972, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Chandler Bateson G., 1980, Mind and Nature, Bantam Books, NY Beer S., 1972, Brain of the Firm, Penguin Biggiero L., 1997, Managerial Action and Observation: A View of Relational Complexity, Systemica, forthcoming
  10. Carroll G.R. (ed.), 1988, Ecological Models of Organizations, Ballinger, Cambridge Chaitin G.J., 1975, Randomness and Mathematical Proof, Scientific American, n.232, May (reprinted in Chaitin 1987b)
  11. Chaitin G.J., 1982, Goedel's Theorem and Information, International J. of Theoretical Physics, vol.22 (reprinted in Chaitin 1987b)
  12. Chaitin G.J., 1987a, Algorithmic Information Theory, Cambridge U.P., Chaitin G.J., 1987b, Information, Randomness & Incompleteness, World Scientific, Singapore Chierchia G., McConnell-Ginet S., 1990, Meaning and Grammar, Cohen M.D., Burkhart R., Dosi G., Egidi M., Marengo L., Warglien M., Winter S., 1996, Routines and Other Recurring Action Patterns of Organizations: Contemporary Research Issues, Industrial and Corporate Change, vol.5, n.3, pp.653-698
  13. Cormen T.H., Leiserson C.E., Rivest R.L., 1990, Introduction to Algorithms, MIT Czarniawska-Joerges B., 1992, Exploring Complex Organizations: A Cultural Perspective, Sage, London
  14. Davis M., 1958, Computability and Unsolvability, McGraw-Hill, N.Y.
  15. Davis M. (eds.), 1965, The Undecidable: Basic Papers on Undecidable Propositions, Unsolvable Problems and Computable Functions, Raven Press, Hewlwtt, N.Y. Dreyfus H.L., 1972, What Computers Can't Do: a Critique of Artificial Reason, Harper & Row, N.Y. Dreyfus H.L., 1987, Being-in the-World: A Commentary on Division I of Heidegger's Being and Time, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
  16. Dreyfus H.L., Dreyfus S.E., 1985, Mind Over Machine, Macmillan/The Free Press, N.Y. Eco U., 1979, A Theory of Semiotics, University of Indiana Press, Bloomington IN Eco U., Sebeok T.A. (eds.), 1983, The Sign of Three, Indiana U.P., Bloomington Ekeland I., 1991, Au hazard, Editions du Seuil, Paris Febbrajo A., Teubner G. (eds.), 1992, State, Law and Economy as Autopoietic System, Giuffrè, Milano Foerster von H., Zopf W. (eds.), 1962, Principles of Self-Organization, Pergamon, NY Foerster von H., 1982, Observing Systems, Intersystems Publications, Seaside Foerster von H., 1984, Principles of Self-Organization in a Socio-Managerial Context, in Ulrich, Probst 1984
  17. Frost P.J., Moore L.F., Lundberg C.C., Martin J. (eds.), 1985, Organizational Culture, Sage, Beverly Hills Garey M.R., Johnson D.S., 1979, Computers and Intractability, Freeman, N.Y. Georgescu-Roegen N., 1966, Analytical Economics. Issues and Problems, Harvard U.P., Cambridge Mass.
  18. Georgescu-Roegen N., 1971, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process, Harvard U.P. Georgescu-Roegen N., 1976, Energy and Economic Myths, Pergamon Press, N.Y. Gill A., 1962, Introduction to the Theory of Finite-State Machines, McGraw-Hill, N.Y. Gleick J., 1987, Chaos: Making a New Science, Penguin, N.Y. Goedel K., 1964, Russel's Mathematical Logic, and What Is Cantor's Continuum Problem?, in Benacerraf and Putnam 1964
  19. Haken H., 1978, Synergetics, Springer, Berlin Hall N., 1991, The New Scientist Guide to Chaos, Penguin
  20. Hannan M., Freeman J., 1989, Organizational Ecology, Harvard U.P., Cambridge MA Hayek F. von, 1937, Economics and Knowledge, Economica
  21. Hayek F. von, 1949, Individualism and Economic Order, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London Hodgson G.M., 1993, Economics and Evolution: Bringing Life Back Into Economics, Polity Press, Cambridge Hofstadter D.R., 1979, Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Basic Books, N.Y. Holland J.H., 1995, Hidden Order, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA Kauffman S.A., 1993, The Origins of Order, Oxford U.P., N.Y. Kets de Vries M.F.R., 1980, Organizational Paradoxes: Clinical Approaches to Management, Tavistock Pub., London Kets de Vries M.F.R., Miller D., 1984, The Neurotic Organization, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco CA Khalil E.L., Boulding K.E. (eds), 1996, Evolution, Order and Complexity, Routledge, London Kline M., 1980, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, Oxford U.P.
  22. Kotler P, 1967, Marketing Management, Prentice-Hall Lenneberg E., 1969, Biological Foundations of Language, Wiley, N.Y. Luhmann N., 1984, Soziale Systeme, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main Mahoney J.T., 1993, Strategic Management and Determinism: Sustaining the Conversation, Journal of Management Studies, vol.30, n.1, January Mandelbrot B.B., 1977, Fractals: Form, Chance and Dimension, Freeman, San Francisco
  23. Maturana H., Varela F., 1980, Autopoiesis and Cognition, Reidel, Dordrecht Merry U., 1995, Coping with Uncertainty, Praeger, Westport (CT)
  24. Miller G.A., Lenneberg E. (eds), 1978, Psychology and Biology of Language and Thought: Essays in Honor of Eric Lenneberg, Academic Press, N.Y. Munitz M.K., Unger P.K. (eds), 1974, Semantics and Philosophy, N.Y. Nagel E., Newman, 1958, Godel's Proof, New York U.P., N.Y. Nelson R.R., 1995, Recent Evolutionary Theorizing About Economic Change, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 33, pp. 48-90, March Nelson R.R., Winter S., 1982, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard U.P., Cambridge Nonaka I., 1988, Creating Organizational Order Out of Chaos: Self-Renewal in Japanese Firms, California Management Review, vol.30, pp. 57-73
  25. Organization Science, 1994, Special Issue on Cognition, vol.5, n.3, August Parker D., Stacey R., 1994, Chaos, Management and Economics: The Implications of Nonlinear Thinking, Institute of Economic Affairs, London Peirce C.S., 1931, Collected Papers, Belknap Press, Cambridge Mass.
  26. Peliti L., Vulpiani A (eds.), 1987, Measures of Complexity, Springer Verlag, Berlin Pfeffer J., Salancik G.R., 1978, The External Control of Organizations, Harper & Row Popper K.R., 1960, The Poverty of Historicism, Lowe and Brydone, London Post E., 1965, Recursive Enumerable Sets of Positive Integrals and their Decision Problem, in Davis 1965
  27. Prigogine I., Stengers I., 1984, Order out of Chaos, Bantam Books Quine W.V.O., 1960, Word and Object, Cambridge (Mass.)
  28. Rorty R., 1979, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton U.P. Ruelle D., 1991, Chance and Chaos, Princeton U.P., Princeton Schanker S.G., 1988, Goedel's Theorem in Focus, Croom Helm, London Searle J.R., 1962, Meaning and Speech Acts, Philosophical Review, vol.73, pp. 43-58
  29. Searle J.R., 1969, Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge U.P., London Searle J.R., 1983, Intentionality, Cambridge U.P. Shannon C.E., Weaver W., 1949, The Mathematical Theory of Communication, Univ. Of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago
  30. Silverberg G., Dosi G., Orsenigo L., 1988, Innovation, Diversity and Diffusion: A Self- Organization Model. In Dosi G., et al.(Eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter Pub., London Simon H.A., 1962, The Architecture of Complexity, in Simon 1969
  31. Simon H.A., 1969, The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
  32. Simon H.A., 1977, Models of Discovery, Reidel, Dordrecht Solomonoff R.J., 1964, A Formal Theory of Inductive Inference, Information and Control, vol.7, March Stalnaker R., 1974, Pragmatic Presuppositions, in Munitz, Unger 1974
  33. Sugden R., 1989, Spontaneous Order, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol.3, n.4, pp.85-97
  34. Thom R., 1972, Stabilitè structurelle et morphogenese, InterEditions S.A., Paris Thom R., 1980, Modeles mathematiques de la morphogenese, Christian Bourgois, Paris Turing A., 1936, On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem, Proceedings of London Mathematical Society, voll.42, 43 (reprinted in Davis 1965)
  35. Ulrich U., Probst G.J.B., 1984, Self-Organization and Management of Social Systems, Springer, N.Y.
  36. Varela F.J., 1979, Principles of Biological Autonomy, North Holland, N.Y.
  37. Varela F.G, Maturana H.R., Uribe R., 1974, Autopoiesis: The Organization of Living Systems, its Characterization and a Model, BioSystems, vol.5, pp.187-196
  38. Varela F.J., Thompson E., Rosch E., 1991, The Embodied Mind. Cognitive Science and Human Experience, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
  39. Vincke Ph., 1992, Multicriteria Decision-Aid, Wiley and Sons, NY
  40. Waldrop M.M., 1992, Complexity. The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos, Simon & Schuster, New York Watzlawick P. (Ed.), 1984, The Invented Reality, Norton, New York
  41. Watzlawick P., Beavin J.H., Jackson D.D., 1967, Pragmatic of Human Communication. A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes, W.W. Norton & Co., N.Y. Weick K., 1969, The Social Psychology of Organizing, Newberry Award Records Inc.
  42. Weyl H., 1949, Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science, Princeton U.P. Wiener N., 1948, Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, John Wiley, N.Y.
  43. Winograd T., Flores F., 1986, Understanding Computers and Cognition. A New Foundation for Design, Ablex Publishing Co., N.J. Wittgenstein L., 1953, Philosophische Untersuchungen, Basil Blackwell, Oxford Wittgenstein L., 1969, On Certainty, Basil Blackwell, Oxford Woodcock A., Davis M., 1978, Catastrophe Theory, … Yovits M.C., Cameron S. (eds.), 1960, Self-Organizing Systems, Pergamon, N.Y. Zan L., 1995, Interactionism and Systemic View in the Strategic Approach, Advances in Strategic Management, vol.12, pp. 261-283
  44. Zeleny M. (ed.), 1980, Autopoiesis, Dissipative Structures, and Spontaneous Social Orders, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado Zeleny M. (ed.), 1981, Autopoiesis: A Theory of Living Organization, North-Holland, N.Y. Zeleny M., 1992, The Aplication of Autopoiesis in Systems Analysis: Are Autopoietic Systems Also Social Systems?, International Journal of General Systems Zeleny M., 1996, On the Social Nature of Autopoietic Systems, in Khalil and Boulding 1996
  45. Zeleny M., Hufford K.D., 1991, All Autopoietic Systems must be Social Systems, Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 14(3): 311-332
  46. Zeleny M., Hufford K.D., 1992, The Application of Autopoiesis in System Analysis: Are Autopoietic Systems Also Social Systems?, International Journal of General Systems, vol.21, pp.145-160

Related papers

Sources of Complexity in Human Systems
Lucio Biggiero

‘‘Complex’’ is a special attribute we can give to many kinds of systems. Although it is used often as a synonym of ‘‘difficult,’’ it has a specific epistemological meaning, which is going to be shared by the incoming science of complexity. ‘‘Difficult’’ is an object which, by means of an adequate computational power, can be deterministically or stochastically predictable. On the contrary ‘‘complex’’ is an object which can not be predictable because of logical impossibility or because its predictability would require a computational power far beyond any physical feasibility, now and forever. For complexity refers to some observing system, it is always subjective, and thus it is defined as observed irreducible complexity. Human systems are affected by several sources of complexity, belonging to three classes, in order of descending restrictivity. Systems belonging to the first class are not predictable at all, those belonging to the second class are predictable only through an infinite computational capacity, and those belonging to the third class are predictable only through a trans-computational capacity. The first class has two sources of complexity: logical complexity, directly deriving from self-reference and Goedel’s incompleteness theorems, and relational complexity, resulting in a sort of indeterminacy principle occurring in social systems. The second class has three sources of complexity: gnosiological complexity, which consists of the variety of possible perceptions; semiotic complexity, which represents the infinite possible interpretations of signs and facts; and chaotic complexity, which characterizes phenomena of nonlinear dynamic systems. The third class coincides with computational complexity, which basically coincides with the mathematical concept of intractability. Artificial, natural, biological and human systems are characterized by the influence of different sources of complexity, and the latter appear to be the most complex.

View PDFchevron_right
Theories of complexity
Ragnar Fjelland

Complexity, 2003

Complexity scientists often express the need for the development of a theory of complexity. One of the major problems on the way toward such a theory is the lack of a generally agreed on definition of complexity. In this article it is proposed that, whatever definition one might one day agree on, contextuality and radical openness are essential features of complexity. Both properties are clarified by means of an example and implications for a future theory of complexity are discussed.

View PDFchevron_right
Complexity and philosophy
Carlos Gershenson

Arxiv preprint cs.CC/0604072, 2006

The science of complexity is based on a new way of thinking that stands in sharp contrast to the philosophy underlying Newtonian science, which is based on reductionism, determinism, and objective knowledge. This paper reviews the historical development of this new world view, focusing on its philosophical foundations. Determinism was challenged by quantum mechanics and chaos theory. Systems theory replaced reductionism by a scientifically based holism. Cybernetics and postmodern social science showed that knowledge is intrinsically subjective. These developments are being integrated under the header of "complexity science". Its central paradigm is the multi-agent system. Agents are intrinsically subjective and uncertain about their environment and future, but out of their local interactions, a global organization emerges. Although different philosophers, and in particular the postmodernists, have voiced similar ideas, the paradigm of complexity still needs to be fully assimilated by philosophy. This will throw a new light on old philosophical issues such as relativism, ethics and the role of the subject.

View PDFchevron_right
Mapping degrees of complexity, complicatedness, and emergent complexity
Mario Giampietro

Ecological Complexity, 2018

This paper assesses the conceptualizations and analytical uses of complexity. Throughout the paper, we carefully eschew ontological issues, and sort out the epistemology of complexity. We try to explain why the ontology of complexity makes no sense to us, much like significance is neither material nor ontological. Our tool of choice is levels of analysis. First, we analyze the conceptualization of complexity. Much discussion of complexity is confused because complexity is mistaken as a material issue. Complexity arises from the way the situation is addressed, and is not material in itself. Even so, complexity does seem to have material ramifications without being itself a straightforward material distinction. We use an illustrative parallel example where genetic dominance is shown not to be material while having material consequences, but only after a gene is asserted to be dominant on normative criteria. Secondly, the paper compares two analytical approaches based on complexity, namely Robert Rosen's work and Joseph Tainter's work. In Rosennean complexity a system is complex if not all its constituent models are simulable, if certainty is denied. In that sense, complexity cannot be defined. Rosen's distinction is between simple and complex systems makes complexity an all or nothing proposition. Complexification is seen by Tainter as a device used by societies to solve their problems. This leads to complexity being a matter of degree in successive societal complexifications, perhaps from Neolithic hunter-gatherers to industrial societies.

View PDFchevron_right
Philosophy and complexity
Francis Heylighen

Complexity, science and society, 2007

Abstract: The science of complexity is based on a new way of thinking that stands in sharp contrast to the philosophy underlying Newtonian science, which is based on reductionism, determinism, and objective knowledge. This paper reviews the historical development of this new world view, focusing on its philosophical foundations. Determinism was challenged by quantum mechanics and chaos theory. Systems theory replaced reductionism by a scientifically based holism. Cybernetics and postmodern social science showed that ...

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved