1
   

New scientific paradigm?

 
 
Damcha
 
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 07:35 pm
It has been indicated to me that 'Complexity Theory' (in this post I will be focusing specifically on computation, but please suggest other fields) is the next scientific paradigm into understanding the growth and nature of complex real-world systems such as living systems, ecological processes, the economy, ethnography, etc.
Information systems such as computers will act as a sort of 'quasi empirical' method of understanding the universe through models, algorithms, cellular automata. If this is untrue, please correct me, as it is from this understanding that I intend to discuss (and personally undertake) computation.

If you are unfamiliar with 'Complexity Theory' or computation check out these links for a quick debriefing... even if computers and science are outside your realm of interest I encourage you to investigate. Its interesting to romantics and analytics alike.
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/complex00.pdf

Given that this is true, could you please tell me how through a man made system of knowledge we are supposed to understand the principles of natural complex systems? Isn't the kind of 'knowledge' computers provide only a knowledge of how the variables we assign to a program interact with each other, not necessarily a representation of the vertiginous, contextually contingent characteristics of an actual complex system?

In other words, how is this means of understanding complex systems not self-referential?

I guess I am wondering what the future of programming looks like, whether it be a mechanism of utility, of innovative services, or a serious approach to understanding the growth and immanent complexity of life processes?

Any input appreciated
Damcha
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,112 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
north
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 10:06 pm
@Damcha,
Damcha wrote:

It has been indicated to me that 'Complexity Theory' (in this post I will be focusing specifically on computation, but please suggest other fields) is the next scientific paradigm into understanding the growth and nature of complex real-world systems such as living systems, ecological processes, the economy, ethnography, etc.
Information systems such as computers will act as a sort of 'quasi empirical' method of understanding the universe through models, algorithms, cellular automata. If this is untrue, please correct me, as it is from this understanding that I intend to discuss (and personally undertake) computation.

If you are unfamiliar with 'Complexity Theory' or computation check out these links for a quick debriefing... even if computers and science are outside your realm of interest I encourage you to investigate. Its interesting to romantics and analytics alike.
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/complex00.pdf

Given that this is true, could you please tell me how through a man made system of knowledge we are supposed to understand the principles of natural complex systems? Isn't the kind of 'knowledge' computers provide only a knowledge of how the variables we assign to a program interact with each other, not necessarily a representation of the vertiginous, contextually contingent characteristics of an actual complex system?

In other words, how is this means of understanding complex systems not self-referential?

I guess I am wondering what the future of programming looks like, whether it be a mechanism of utility, of innovative services, or a serious approach to understanding the growth and immanent complexity of life processes?

Any input appreciated
Damcha



true there are complex systems

but I have always found this , complexity , simplicity and simplicity , complexity seem to circle each other in NO particluar order , one is no more dominate than another

the simplist thing I know is the hydrogen atom , yet beyond this atom , is the complexity of its make up

both extremes make up any thing and life
Damcha
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 09:46 am
@north,
Certainly, we live in a world of extremes. It is the aim of complexity science to understand the dynamics that orchestrate these 'extremes'.
What do you think of my suggesting that
'simplicity is myopic, chaos is farsighted' ?

'Complexity' is a branch of science in itself that aims, through computation (but this may later utilize other applications) to replicate the behavior of systems that have an intricate organization characterized both by chaos and patterned regularity. The economy is an example, although businesses offer specific products and services, they are ensconced in the maelstrom of public interest which by nature is singular, as everyone buys products for different reasons, yet still exhibits patterns. People eat because they are hungry, shop for clothing because nudity tends to be offensive.
Yet, the relationship between seemingly simplicity (the 'objective' structure of a business) and the vicissitudes of consumers, produces the epiphenomena, an emergent phenomena, 'economy'. Which we cannot deny actually exists and has a loose 'organization', yet teeters on chaos. This is called the 'critical point'.

Mentioned in the linked article. Which I admonish everyone interested in this post to read.

I think a reply on another forum to a similar post is an adequate response to your post on my topic:
-----------------------------------
Quote:

Resolved QuestionShow me another ยป
Can atoms change into other atoms?
how and what does it have to do with fission and fusion and nucluer decay? .... please dumb it down al little. lol
3 years ago Report Abuse

chalis91...
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Yes they can. In fact it is theorized that main two elements to exist after the proposed big-bang were hydrogen and helium. All other elements were then created by fusion products from these two elements.

Now that we have a periodic table's worth of elements, fusion and fission and nuclear decay can occur to change one element into another.

Fusion occurs when two atoms of one or more elements combine to create a new atom. This reaction results in the release of ALOT of heat and energy. This reaction occurs inside the sun and inside hydrogen bombs.

Fission occurs when one atom decays into two or more atoms. This reaction also releases alot of energy (not as much as fusion though). This reaction also can occur in stars. It also occurs inside of atomic bombs (like those used in world war II).

Nuclear decay is when an atom decays to another element or isotope by loss of an energy particle. This is different that fission in that the atom does not split into two or more atoms, but loses energy through a particle. There are different types of particles that can be lost, most commonly referred to as alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This is a very common form of nuclear decay and is what many radioactively elements do spontaneously over time.
----------------------------------------

Molecules are simple, with controlled conditions/variables, but their simplicity is inextricably contingent on those conditions. It is through awareness of these conditions that we practice chemistry (a refinement on alchemy?) and synthesize new substances.

If I've misinterpreted your response, let me know!
Damcha

0 Replies
 
Damcha
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 09:49 am
@north,
Damcha wrote:
they are ensconced in the maelstrom of public interest which by nature is singular


Oops, this was misstated, by singular I mean each individual action taken by 'members of the public' is reproducible, has circumstantial singularity
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 07:42 pm
@Damcha,
I'm not well versed in computation, but another a2k'er brought this video to my attention a while back.

Computing a theory of everything

Very interesting stuff.
Damcha
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 11:42 pm
@Cyracuz,
Wolfram! Yes!! thanks
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » New scientific paradigm?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/18/2019 at 02:20:07