stAGES of Complexness

[Jack Ring]

Consider, for examples, these perspectives on complexness

• About age 8 we learned about simple, compound and complex sentences and the underlying rules of grammar. We laughed at “throw the horse over the fence some hay.” Why is a specific arrangement of words considered complex?
• About age 12 we learned about simultaneous equations so that we could deal with situations involving N mutually interacting variables. We learned that we needed N different equations.  We learned the mechanics of isolating a variable in one of the equations then substituting the term equivalent to that variable for that variable in the other equations. And we learned something more important --- how to select the equation and variable that made the substitution most effective in reducing the complexity of the whole set of equations. Unfortunately, we did not learn how to characterize the degree of complexity of any given set of equations.
• About age 13 our encounter with algebra (complex sentences) taught us about transforms. Viewing a problem set from a different perspective often made the discovery of a solution much easier --- if you could do the inverse transform at the end. Beyond algebra we now are able to exchange knowledge using the “if I were you, I would have…” transform, c.f., Conceptual Blending,
• For those who were ready in the 1960’s we learned about System Dynamics which highlighted a) the notions of influences or causalities between variable and patterns of such relationships and b) the effect of time delays on the relationships.
• A few in college may have experienced implicit differential equations and second order implicitness that helps deal with the rate of change of stimuli, resources and system gradients and structure.
• In the 1970's a co-worker, Bob Wengert, figured out how to use Maximum Likelihood to apportion uncertainties throughout a system of non-stationary components. It was immediately classified.
• Along came Bayesian Belief Networks 
• Then genetic algorithms as agents.
• Probably very few have studied or experienced category theory in the field of mathematics. Likewise the calculus of sets. The successful design of effective complex systems is greatly helped by knowledge in these areas.

What clues do these give for a recipe for design and engineering of interventions to complex problematic situations?

[joseph simpson]

Jack...

Interesting... yet again.. 

"What clues do these give for a recipe for design and engineering of interventions to complex problematic situations?"

Clues for a design and engineering recipe to intervene in complex problematic situations...

These listed items provide the following clues.....

The listed items are ....

   1 - human development and perception as a function of age...

   2 - symbolic tools used to communicate information...

   3 - application of (or mis-application of) physics principles to highly dynamic social systems

   4 - discrete application of symbols and values to continuous systems

   5 - the stilted application of probability theory to dissimilar systems and values...

   6 - the law of the excluded middle applied to continuous measures of the range of 0 to 1....

   7 - vast inexpensive computing power applied to fragmented rule sets...

   8 - the lack of detailed understanding in the field of math and logic...

The general clues are:

   Complex systems are effectively engaged using shared vision, common symbols, common context and common value sets...   

   Systems that are complex in one context are simple in another context...

   It is very difficult to communicate an idea to a person whose job depends on people (including the person) not understanding the idea...

   If everyone knew everything then nothing would be complex...

   Unfortunately, there are very few people that know everything...

But at least there are of few of us left, Jack....

Have fun,

 

--
--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/ .
 
Notifications on web activities can be sent from https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/isss-incose.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
Joe Simpson

Sent From My DROID!!

[profhitchins]

Jack & Joe,

I wonder if we are, perhaps, approaching the subject of "unravelling complexity," if indeed it may be described that way, from an inappropriate end of the horse—the one of a different colour, that is. Consider for a moment how complexity is generated in the first place. 

Mathematicians propose that the Mandelbrot set is the most complex mathematical entity, yet it is generated by the simplest of equations: z=z^2 + C. Examining the Set shows it to be full of variety, different forms of interconnectedness, and above all fractal convolutions, so that one may delve deeper and deeper into the set without ever reaching the 'floor.' Imagine if you did not know how the Set was generated—how would you go about trying to 'solve the problem,' unravel the knot, or whatever. And the key is probably in recognizing the repeating fractal patterns.

And then, of course, there is the problem of understanding, diagnosing and hopefully curing problems within the human body—a la House. Doctors are faced with probably the most complex system on the planet, yet they diagnose—occasionally correctly—without a sign of mathematics, or concerns over degrees of complexity. They do, however, have a major interest in symptoms, contexts, histories, emergent properties and behaviours, etc.

Similarly, detectives seem—sometimes almost miraculously—to be able to solve a complex crime when there are few clues, many suspects and no apparent motive. To some, it seems that detectives approach to solving of crime in a way not unlike the doctor diagnosing some (societal) bodily dysfunction...

All of which suggests that it may be possible to diagnose the nature of a complex problem without recourse to mathematics, or to levels of complexity, and it may be possible similarly to synthesize and manage complex solutions to complex problems.

 Just a thought...

Derek H

[Jack Ring]

Joe, Thank you for this. Some questions for clarification ---

On Aug 16, 2013, at 10:09 PM, joseph simpson wrote:

The general clues are:

   Complex systems are effectively engaged using shared vision, common symbols, common context and common value sets…  

Are you saying that two or more persons must engage? What degree of commonality is necessary? Does this caution against diversity? 

   Systems that are complex in one context are simple in another context…

Why does the complexness attribute of a system change with context? Are you equating system with configuration and saying that some of the configuration will participate in one context but some other subset of the configuration will participate in another context?

   It is very difficult to communicate an idea to a person whose job depends on people (including the person) not understanding the idea…

Yes. So?

   If everyone knew everything then nothing would be complex…

How so. Complex is not in the eye of the beholder. 

Perhaps the more a system knows (embedded models of context, transfer functions, etc.) the more complex it becomes. Are you equating complex with complexity?

   Unfortunately, there are very few people that know everything…

Perhaps that is fortunate. Knowing everything precludes the joy of learning.

[Ken Lloyd]

Re: “ … it may be possible to diagnose the nature of a complex problem without recourse to mathematics.”

 

I suppose it depends upon your conceptualization of what constitutes mathematics.  If, by mathematics, one merely thinks in terms of the manipulation of numbers (arithmetic) or numeric substitution symbols (traditional algebra), that is a very limited conceptualization.

 

We probably all understand that complexity can occur from interaction through simply described relationships.  Some of us ask, (in some sense) mathematically, how objects, and categories of structures of objects, may be ‘composed’ and morphed.  There are subtle assumptions at play in our traditional conceptualization of mathematics that often confound our understandings.  The primary assumption is that mathematics takes place (in its comparisons) at equilibrium.  What if that were not the case?  This gets to one of the founding issues in category theory – what do we mean by equal? Equivalent classes?  http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/phil/BJPSMacLane.pdf

 

Ken Lloyd

[Jack Ring]

Derek, 

Thanks for the observations.

Just which end of the horse are you claiming to represent? ;-)

Complexity, the nature of the relationship between a system and an observer (Warfield), may be unravelled by "smartening" the observer or by 'clarifying' the paths in the system, preferably both. 

Unravelling a complex system aka clarifying the paths can be done by noticing its myriad changes then discovering the weakest precondition for each change (as manifested as an output or an adaptation). This can be a very large task but thankfully now automate-able by applying the progress principle and the invariant principle and using the right kind of automaton, c.f., System of System Readiness Assessment, 

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzeXNzY2l3ZzIwMTN8Z3g6MmE1MmFmYWQ3MjQ1ZWIwYQ

Unravelling a system is only half the challenge. We must also know how to design and devise a system that is complex enough but no more complex than necessary.

Understanding how a complex configuration is generated can be useful. The Mandelbrot pattern example is one case. However, the real world presents us with Mandelbrots that are disfigured by all sorts of Random Variables. Separating the signals from the noise becomes the challenge.

Then the configuration is one thing but the behavior is another. A system happens when the configuration responds to a stimulus. In some cases the whole configuration participates but in others only subsets do. These are called modes of operation, a notion largely missing from current SE recipes.

Having had the good fortune to work with a practicing medical doctor who also decided to earn a PhD in bionic systems, I am told that doctors have a taxonomy that relates symptoms to treatments, different patterns of which are labeled as specific diseases. Accordingly all a doctor is permitted to do is observe the symptoms until he/she finds a convincing relationship to a treatment. That's why it takes the medical cadre months to recognize a new 'disease' that creates new paths in the taxonomy thereby warranting a new label, for example HIV. According to him those who devise the taxonomy are quite involved in mathematics and complexness therefore ways of minimizing observer confusion and type 1 and type 2 errors in their diagnoses. And that is the root of the recent reports that approximately 50% of medical doctor's conclusions and prescriptions are errorneous.

OBTW, part of the medical doctors' results may be that the models of the human body only show the configuration of the stuff, but not the behaviors that make 'system' happen. Prof. Bruce Lipton's Biology of Belief is a big clue to this distinction. 

According to me, a system IS, KNOWS and DOES. Any description of an entity that does not address all three facets describes only a configuration, not a system.  

If there are few clues then how do you know the crime was complex? Don't label a crime complex until you know its degree of complexness. Warfield's Situation Complexity Index may help.  Many detectives, like doctors, utilize modus operandi patterns then search for good fit. Others use more of a Bayesian approach. (I just detached from one who was so Bayesian that he knew I needed a CPAP machine to overcome sleep apnea even though I told him repeatedly that the condition arose while sitting upright watching TV or doing email. Sure enough after 60 nights with the machine the symptoms have not changed.) 

One of my associates, Dr. Pizzarello, is in the process of demonstrating that It now possible a) to discover the roots of complex behavior b) to figure out "where to stick the needle" or otherwise select a strategy for an intervention thereby identifying the effects the intervention system must exhibit, therefore the capabilities it must have and c) even to automate nomination and composition of the intervention system functions and features and preferred architecture thereof while honoring the constraints of available technologies and other resources. The literature indicates that trials are underway in several diverse fields of human endeavor --- except in INCOSE.

As I posted earlier, I think the SE recipe you listed is an excellent start and can be evolved. Let's focus on evolving your list.  My post on stAGES of Complexity was somewhat of a sidelight. It occurred to me while listening to the AIAA CASE Conference participants discuss complexity and emergence.

Onward,

Jack

[Jack Ring]

Ken, 

TKU for this. Looks like we all should learn to apply category theory.

Jack

[derek hitchins]

On 17 Aug 2013, at 17:52, Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com> wrote:

As I posted earlier, I think the SE recipe you listed is an excellent start and can be evolved. Let's focus on evolving your list.  My post on stAGES of Complexity was somewhat of a sidelight. 

Mmm… Agreed. Thanks for the education—clearly needed. Your move.

Derek H

[joseph simpson]

Derek:

Insightful as always...

At this time I will just focus on this statement...

"Mathematicians propose that the Mandelbrot set is the most complex mathematical entity, yet it is generated by the simplest of equations: z=z^2 + C."

From ... http://www.math.ufl.edu/~rcrew/texts/pythagoras.html

"Here, for example, is a modern legend. This particular example is from William Everdell's The First Moderns , but I first heard it by word of mouth some 25 years ago:

...for a long time Pythagoras believed that every conceivable quantity could be expressed as a ratio (ratio in Latin is reason) of two of the available infinity of whole numbers - as for example 3/5 is the ratio of three and five or 119/120 is the ratio of one hundred and nineteen and one hundred and twenty. Then one day, one of Pythagoras's disciples pointed out to him that the diagonal of a square whose side was one unit could not be expressed that way. The two whole numbers needed to give the diagonal as their ratio did not exist; it was true and could be proved. Instead, one had to use the square root of 2, which is in this sense irrational and never "comes out even." Since they were all on a boat at the time, Pythagoras threw his student overboard and swore everyone else in his class to secrecy.

The truth, however, did not drown, and Greek mathematics was brought face to face with a brand new question... (Everdell 33)"

An example of not wanting to know a specific idea is given above..

I view the systems approach as basically divided into two general forms..

The system discovery form and the system design form...

The discovery of the solar system is the same form of activity as the discovery of a mathematical principle...

Along with an equation, the acceptable number system must be indicated...

For example.. 

"the simplest of equations: z=z^2 + C." does not generate a complex entity when the the allowed values for the variables are the Boolean constants 0 and 1 applied using Boolean operators.  This generates a very boring entity.  So the equation must be paired  with the correct number system and operator set.

A given system can have many views and facets, if one of those views is simple and non-complex I consider the system simple.

Any simple system can be encrypted to make it complex...  al la .. job protection and obscurification

 of simple things for political and economic gain...

Systems activity modes are an important context discriminator in discussing systems science...

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

 

--

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/ .
 
Notifications on web activities can be sent from https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/isss-incose.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[joseph simpson]

Jack....

Great questions.. some responses below...

"

Complex systems are effectively engaged using shared vision, common symbols, common context and common value sets…   Are you saying that two or more persons must engage? What degree of commonality is necessary?  Does this caution against diversity?"

This statement is a little more basic... Take the activity of discovering the solar system (system discovery mode).. The common context and shared vision mean.... that the act of observing the solar system by an one individual does not  a "special solar system" only for that person to observe...  We all share the same solar system and the properties of  the solar system are uniformly applied to all observers and non-observer objects... It means that a fundamental uniform context exits for all objects in the context of interest... Have fun...

--
--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/ .
 
Notifications on web activities can be sent from https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/isss-incose.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Jack Ring]

Joe, I am having trouble with this. Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean.

Your solar system seems to be an a priori presumption awaiting an observer. Wherever did you get the idea that a solar system exists? Does it contain encompass rays?

Regarding shared vision, I think the evidence is pretty clear that any X as viewed by N persons yields N understandings, the set of which can never be fully understood by any one person. If so, then how do you arrive at "a fundamental, uniform context?"

Jack

[joseph simpson]

Jack:

The main idea is relative complexity.... some activities are less complex than others..

Select a main activity... viewing the solar system... or viewing a movie...

Lets talk about viewing a movie...

If everyone is viewing the same movie then the basis for discussing systems found in the movie is constant...

If everyone is viewing a different movie the the basis for discussing systems found in the movies may or may not exist and it it exists then it may or may not be constant..

The activity of discussing identified systems is less complex if everyone is viewing the same movie...

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[Jack Ring]

In my world you are indicating that some activities are less complex than others and that some observers are less able to hold multiple relationships in mind. I think you are indicating ambiguity, not complexness nor complexity.

Regardless, if everyone is viewing the same movie then the basis for discussing systems found in the movie is NOT constant because each one is operating from their respective model of the movie, not the actual movie.

[joseph simpson]

Jack:

For discussion lets say we have 10 observers, all with identical capability....

If they are all observing the same movie... then 

the number of items, objects and relationships are less than if they are all watching different movies...

Therefore, the situation where all observers are watching the same movie is less complex...

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun in your world...

Joe

[Jack Ring]

OK, if you first tell me where you got 10 observers with identical capability and how you determined their capabilities were identical.

[joseph simpson]

Jack...

These are just general statements... 

Intended to communicate a general idea...

Take care, be good to yourself and generally have fun...

Joe