1 / 34

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 WORLD. DON MIKULECKY PROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGY VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY http://views.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/. WHAT IS COMPLEXITY?. TOO MANY DEFINITIONS, SOME CONFLICTING

blake
Télécharger la présentation

THE COMPLEXITY OF SCIENCE AND THE SCIENCE OF COMPLEXITY: HOW TO SURVIVE IN A SELF-REFERENTIAL WORLD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THE COMPLEXITY OF SCIENCE AND THE SCIENCE OF COMPLEXITY: HOW TO SURVIVE INA 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 ENZYMES DNA PROTEINS TRANSCRIPTION

  7. HOMEOSTASIS MILLEU FOR CELLS, TISSUES AND ORGANS TISSUES AND ORGANS CELLS

  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 ENCODING NATURAL SYSTEM FORMAL SYSTEM CAUSAL EVENT IMPLICATION DECODING FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM

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

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

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

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

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

  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

More Related