IF THE WHOLE WORLD IS COMPLEX, WHY BOTHER? D. C. MIKULECKY PROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGY VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY

WHAT I HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH PROVIDE A UNIQUE, WORKABLE CONCEPT OF COMPLEXITY MAKE A CLEAR DISTICTION BETWEEN THE REAL WORLD AND THOSE FORMAL THINGS WE DO TO TRY TO MODEL IT SHOW HOW THE FORMAL DESCRIPTION OF THE REAL WORLD REDUCES IT TO SIMPLE MECHANISMS PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF BOTH MECHANISTIC AND RELATIONAL MODELS OF THE WORLD USE THE DEFINITION OF ORGANISM TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT CAN BE DONE BY STEPPING OUT OF THE TRADITIONAL FRAMEWORK

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

COMPLEXITY VS COMPLICATION Von NEUMAN THOUGHT THAT A CRITICAL LEVEL OF “SYSTEM SIZE” WOULD “TRIGGER” THE ONSET OF “COMPLEXITY” (REALLY COMPLICATION) COMPLEXITY IS MORE A FUNCTION OF SYSTEM QUALITIES RATHER THAN SIZE COMPLEXITY RESULTS FROM BIFURCATIONS - NOT IN THE DYNAMICS, BUT IN THE DESCRIPTION! THUS COMPLEX SYSTEMS REQUIRE THAT THEY BE ENCODED INTO MORE THAN ONE FORMAL SYSTEM IN ORDER TO BE MORE COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD

NATURAL VS FORMAL SYSTEMS THE REAL WORLD IS COMPLEX WE HAVE TREATED IT FORMALLY AS IF IT WERE SIMPLE THE RESULT IS THE “DISCOVERY” OF COMPLEXITY, EMERGENCE,ETC. THE IDEA IS BEST SEEN USING THE MODELING RELATION

THE MODELING RELATION: THE ESSENCE OF SCIENCE ALLOWS US TO ASSIGN MEANING TO THE WORLD AROUND US A “MODEL” OF OUR THINKING PROCESS CAUSALITY IN THE NATURAL SYSTEM IS DEALT WITH THROUGH IMPLICATION IN A FORMAL SYSTEM THERE IS AN ENCODING OF THE NATURAL SYSTEM INTO THE FORMAL SYSTEM AND A DECODING BACK WHEN IT ALL HANGS TOGETHER WE HAVE A MODEL

THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF HOW WE MAKE MODELS NATURAL SYSTEM FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM FORMAL SYSTEM ENCODING DECODING CAUSAL EVENT 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 CAUSAL EVENT MANIPULATION

WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE MODELING RELATION NATURAL SYSTEM FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM FORMAL SYSTEM CAUSAL EVENT MANIPULATION

WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE MODELING RELATION NATURAL SYSTEM FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM FORMAL SYSTEM MANIPULATION

MORE ON THE MODELING RELATION THE FORMAL SYSTEM DOES NOT INCLUDE INFORMATION ABOUT ENCODING AND/OR DECODING THEREFORE MODELING WILL ALWAYS BE AN ART ONLY IN THE NEWTONIAN PARADIGM DOES THE FORMAL SYSTEM BECOME THE NATURAL SYSTEM (ENCODING AND DECODING ARE AUTOMATIC) AND ALL THAT IS LEFT TO DO IS TO MEASURE THINGS

SCIENCE REDUCED THE WORLD TO SIMPLE MECHANISMS THE USUAL SCIENTIFIC PICTURE OF REALITY IS A MECHANISM DEFICIENT IN CAUSAL RELATIONS FRAGMENTABLE TO ATOMS AND MOLECULES NOT “GENERIC” BUT TREATED AS IF THEY WERE

COMPLEXITY REQUIRES A CIRCLE OF IDEAS AND METHODS THAT DEPART RADICALLY FROM THOSE TAKEN AS AXIOMATIC FOR THE PAST 300 YEARS OUR CURRENT SYSTEMS THEORY, INCLUDING ALL THAT IS TAKEN FROM PHYSICS OR PHYSICAL SCIENCE, DEALS EXCLUSIVELY WITH SIMPLE SYSTEMS OR MECHANISMS COMPLEX AND SIMPLE SYSTEMS ARE DISJOINT CATEGORIES

COMPLEX SYSTEMS VS SIMPLE MECHANISMS COMPLEX NO LARGEST MODEL WHOLE MORE THAN SUM OF PARTS CAUSAL RELATIONS RICH AND INTERTWINED GENERIC ANALYTIC  SYNTHETIC NON-FRAGMENTABLE NON-COMPUTABLE REAL WORLD SIMPLE LARGEST MODEL WHOLE IS SUM OF PARTS CAUSAL RELATIONS DISTINCT N0N-GENERIC ANALYTIC = SYNTHETIC FRAGMENTABLE COMPUTABLE FORMAL SYSTEM

GENERICITY AND SURROGACY GENERIC PROPERTIES ARE THOSE POSSESED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF A CLASS (AS OPPOSED TO SPECIAL PROPERTIES WHICH DISTINGUISH THE MEMBERS OF A CLASS) SURROGACY IS THE ABILITY TO EXTRAPOLATE ONE’S MEASUREMENTS ON A FEW INDIVIDUALS TO THE GROUP

COMPLEXITY AND EMERGENCE THE GENERIC ASPECT OF REAL SYSTEMS IS THAT THEY ARE ALL COMPLEX THIS COMPLEXITY WORKS AGAINST SURROGACY AND LEADS TO THE NOTION OF EMERGENCE

WHY IS ORGANIZATION SPECIAL? BEYOND MERE ATOMS AND MOLECULES IS THE WHOLE MORE THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS? IF IT IS THERE IS SOMETHING THAT IS LOST WHEN WE BREAK IT DOWN TO ATOMS AND MOLECULES THAT “SOMETHING” MUST EXIST

WHAT IS ORGANIZATION? DICTIONARY DEFINITION: NOUN: 1. THE ACT OR PROCESS OF BEING ORGANIZED 2.THE CONDITION OR MANNER OF BEING ORGANIZED (ALSO ASSOCIATION OR SOCIETY AND ITS PERSONNEL)

TO ORGANIZE DICTIONARY DEFINITION: VERB: 1. TO CAUSE OR DEVELOP AN ORGANIC STRUCTURE 2. TO ARRANGE OR FORM INTO A COHERENT UNITYOR FUNCTIONING WHOLE, TO INTEGRATE 3. TO ARRANGE ELEMENTS INTO A WHOLE OF INTERDEPENDENT PARTS

NOUN OR VERB OR ADJECTIVE? AN ORGANIZED DESK AN ORGANIZED CORPORATION AN ORGANIZED AUTOMOBILE AN ORGANIZED FROG AN ORGANIZED ECOSYSTEM

WHAT MAKES BIOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION UNIQUE? SELF-REFERENCE CONTINGENCY PARALLEL DISTRIBUTION MAPPINGS ARE MANY TO MANY RATHER THAN ONE TO ONE CAUSALITY IS INTERTWINED CATABOLISM AND ANABOLISM ARE BOTH IMPORTANT MECHANISMS ARE SPECIAL

EVEN IN THE WORLD OF MECHANISMS THERE ARETHE SEEDS OF COMPLEXITY THEORY THERMODYNAMIC REASONING OPEN SYSTEMS THERMODYNAMICS NETWORK THERMODYNAMICS

THE NATURE OF THERMODYNAMIC REASONING THERMODYNAMICS IS ABOUT THOSE PROPERTIES OF SYSTEMS WHICH ARE TRUE INDEPENDENT OF MECHANISM THEREFORE WE CAN NOT LEARN TO DISTINGUISH MECHANISMS BY THERMODYNAMIC REASONING

THERMODYNAMICS OF OPEN SYSTEMS THE NATURE OF THERMODYNAMIC REASONING HOW CAN LIFE FIGHT ENTROPY? WHAT ARE THERMODYNAMIC NETWORKS?

NETWORKS IN NATURE NATURE EDITORIAL: VOL 234, DECEMBER 17, 1971, pp “KATCHALSKY AND HIS COLLEAGUES SHOW, WITH EXAMPLES FROM MEMBRANE SYSTEMS, HOW THE TECHNIQUES DEVELOPED IN ENGINEERING SYSTEMS MIGHT BE APPLIED TO THE EXTREMELY HIGHLY CONNECTED AND INHOMOGENEOUS PATTERNS OF FORCES AND FLUXES WHICH ARE CHARACTERISTIC OF CELL BIOLOGY”

MY BOOK: APPLICATION OF NETWORK THERMODYNAMICS TO PROBLEMS IN BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, NYU PRESS, 1993 PREFACE, CONTENTS AND REFERENCES ARE ON MY WEB PAGE

SOME PUBLISHED NETWORK MODELS OF PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS SR (BRIGGS,FEHER) GLOMERULUS (OKEN) ADIPOCYTE GLUCOSE TRANSPORT AND METABOLISM (MAY) FROG SKIN MODEL (HUF) TOAD BLADDER (MINZ) KIDNEY (FIDELMAN,WATTLI NGTON) FOLATE METABOLISM (GOLDMAN, WHITE) ATP SYNTHETASE (CAPLAN, PIETROBON, AZZONE)

AN EXAMPLE: SODIUM TRANSPORTING EPITHELIA CAN BE GROWN IN CULTURE HAVE A DISTINCT ORGANIZATION WHICH IS NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT FOR THEIR FUNCTION UNDERGO A TRANSFORMATION AS THE EPITHELIUM DEVELOPS IN CULTURE

An Epithelial Membrane in Cartoon Form:

A Network Model of Coupled Salt and Volume Flow Through an Epithelium

WHAT IS THE NETWORK THERMODYNAMIC MODEL? IT CAPTURES ORGANIZATION AS THE NETWORK’S TOPOLOGY SPHERICAL CELL - SIMPLE TOPOLOGY FUNCTIONAL EPITHELIUM - SAME CELL DEVELOPS A MORE COMPLICATED TOPOLOGY

LIMITS OF THE NETWORK THERMODYNAMIC MODEL IT CAN MODEL EITHER CASE, BUT THESE MODELS CONTAIN NO INFORMATION ABOUT WHY ONE TRANSFORMS INTO THE OTHER IT CAN NOT MODEL THE TRANSITION AS WELL THE REAL SYSTEM IS COMPLEX

MISSING ASPECTS OF THE TRANSITION TO BE MODELED CELL SIGNALLING EVENTS NUCLEAR EVENT MECHANICAL EVENTS ONSET OF “EMERGENT” FUNCTION

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? FORMALISMS HAVE LIMITS (GÖDEL) THEREFORE ONE FORMALISM IS NOT ENOUGH MECHANISTIC FORMALISMS ARE INADEQUATE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES, IN PARTICULAR CHANGES IN ORGANIZATION

WHAT ABOUT OTHER FORMALISMS? RELATIONAL OTHERS

THE RELATIONAL APPROACH TO A COMPLEX REALITY FOCUS ON THE ORGANIZATION DEVELOP A SET OF FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS WHICH CAPTURE THAT ORGANIZATION UTILIZE THE CAUSAL RELATIONS RESULTING FROM ANSWERING “WHY?”

FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS MUST POSSESS ENOUGH IDENTITY TO BE CONSIDERED A “THING” MUST BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE PROPERTIES FROM LARGER SYSTEMS TO WHICH IT MAY BELONG ITS FORMAL IMAGE IS A MAPPING f: A -----> B THIS INTRODUCES A NEW KIND OF “DYNAMICS” : RELATIONAL

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

METABOLISM/REPAIR SYSTEMS BASED ON INPUT/OUTPUT REPRESENTATIONS OF SYSTEMS MORE ABSTRACT ALLOW CAUSALITY TO BE REPRESENTED LEAD TO NEW INFORMATION ARE BASED ON RECOGNITION THAT BUILDING UP AND TEARING DOWN ARE PART OF THE LIFE PROCESS

THE IMPORTANCE OF CATABOLISM AND ANABOLISM NO STRUCTURE IS PERMANENT ADAPTABILITY AND CHANGE INHERENT NEEDS SPECIAL TYPE OF ORGANIZATION IMPORTANT FOR UNDERSTANDING EVOLUTION, DEVELOPMENT, AND HEALING

THE RELATIONAL REPRESENTATION INVOLVES MAPPINGS METABOLISM IS f: A  B A REPRESENTS METABOLITES WHICH CAN ALSO EXCHANGE WITH THE ENVIRONMENT B REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF METABOLISM f IS A MAPPING FROM A TO B

THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS A IS THE MATERIAL CAUSE OF B (DOTTED ARROW) f IS THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF B OTHER COMPONENTS FOR REPAIR AND REPLICATION COME IN BECAUSE THESE COMPONENTS HAVE A FINITE LIFETIME: CATABOLISM AND ANABOLISM OR “TURNOVER”

f A B  ROSEN’S RELATIONAL MODEL OF THE ORGANISM

f  A B 

f A B 

ORGANISMS ARE COMPLEX SYSTEMS ARE CLOSED TO EFFICIENT CAUSE ARE AUTOPOIETIC UNITIES

SOME CONSEQUENCES REDUCTIONISM DID SERIOUS DAMAGE TO THERMODYNAMICS THERMODYNAMICS IS MORE IN HARMONY WITH TOPOLOGICAL MATHEMATICS THAN IT IS WITH ANALYTICAL MATHEMATICS THUS TOPOLOGY AND NOT MOLECULAR STATISTICS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL TOOL

EXAMPLES: CAROTHEODRY’S PROOF OF THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS THE PROOF OF TELLEGEN’S THEOREM AND THE QUASI-POWER THEOREM THE PROOF OF “ONSAGER’S” RECIPROCITY THEOREM

RELATIONAL NETWORKS THROW AWAY THE PHYSICS, KEEP THE ORGANIZATION DYNAMICS BECOMES A MAPPING BETWEEN SETS TIME IS IMPLICIT USE FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS-WHICH DO NOT MAP INTO ATOMS AND MOLECULES 1:1 AND WHICH ARE IRREDUCABLE

THE NEW VITALISM LIVING SYSTEMS POSESS A TYPE OF ORGANIZATION WHICH NON-LIVING SYSTEMS DO NOT THIS BIOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION WILL ALWAYS DEFY FORMALIZATION- IT HAS NON-COMPUTABLE COMPONENTS