1. 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/

2. 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”?)

3. THE CENTURY OF COMPLEXITY? Complexity Digest 2001.10 March-05- 2001 "I think the next century will be the century of complexity." Stephen Hawking

4. 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

5. 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?

6. SELF-REFERENCE, CIRCULARITY AND THE GENOME REPLICATION TRANSCRIPTION

7. HOMEOSTASIS

8. WHERE DO CELLS COME FROM? DNA? GENES? PROTEINS? OTHER CELLS? SPONTANEOUS GENERATION?

9. THE CELL THEORY CELLS COME FROM OTHER CELLS

10. 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

11. 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

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

13. WE HAVE A USEFUL MODEL WHEN ARE SATISFACTORY WAYS OF “UNDERSTANDING” THE CHANGE IN THE WORLD “OUT THERE”

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

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

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

17. THE SCIENTIFIC MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF HOW WE DO SCIENCE NATURAL SYSTEM FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM FORMAL SYSTEM FORMULA EXPERIMENT MANIPULATION DATA FITTING

18. 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

19. 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”)

20. 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

21. 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”

22. 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?”

23. 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

24. 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)

25. 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

26. 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.)

27. 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)

28. 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

29. EXAMPLE: THE MIND/BODY PROBLEM HOW CAN THE MIND MODEL ITSELF? AM I CONSCIOUS? HOW DOES THE BRAIN PRODUCE CONSCIOUSNESS, SELF AWARENESS, ETC.?

30. 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

31. 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)

32. 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

33. 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