I faintly recall but do not readily find the SFI paper mentioned.
The notion that certain kinds of problems are not amenable to problem
suppression systems, i.e., wicked problems is relevant.
http://www.uctc.net/mwebber/Rittel+Webber+Dilemmas+General_Theory_of_Planning.pdf
Also, an alternative view was given in 1994 by John Casti at
http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/94-06-034.pdf (01)
On Feb 1, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Jack Park wrote: (02)
> I recall a lecture at an SFI meeting back in something like 1992 or so
> in which the topic was about systems which are too complex to be
> modeled or simulated. Have not been able to find a reference.
>
> For one look at relational complexity in natural science, look at John
> Kineman's dissertation:
>
> http://gradworks.umi.com/3284407.pdf
>
> JackP
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This may make things even simpler ---
>> Start with the Latin plic meaning jumbled as in complicated and the Latin
>plex meaning intricately interrelated as in complex. Then note that the only
>difference between modeling and/or comprehening a) a simple system, b) a
>complicated montage, and c) a complex system is the capability of the observer
>(span of competencies and degree of proficiency in each). The key attributes
>of any system (or montage) are extent, variety and amiguity. When the variety
>of interrelationships exceed the observer's ability then the complexness of
>the system begets angst in the mind of the human. Humans call this complexity,
>properly an attribute of the relationship twixt the system and observer.
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:59 PM, David Price wrote:
>>
>>> There was a good article in Sept 2011 HBR about complexity by Sargut and
>>> McGrath, in organizations specifically, that suggested that 'complex'
>>> was differentiated from 'complicated' by the fact that the same inputs
>>> did not necessarily result in the same outputs (this is the 'emergent'
>>> behavior people mention). Six Sigma approaches, for example, can be
>>> applied to complicated processes but not to complex ones. They said that
>>> what made systems complex was three properties: 1) multiplicity of
>>> interacting elements, 2) interdependence of those elements and 3)
>>> diversity of the elements. Interestingly, they claimed that:
>>>
>>> "It's possible to understand both simple and complicated systems by
>>> identifying and modeling the relationship between the parts; the
>>> relationships can be reduced to clear, predicable interactions. It's not
>>> possible to understand complex systems in this way, because all the
>>> elements are interacting continuously and unpredictable."
>>>
>>> They use Air Traffic Control as an example of a complex system that must
>>> adapt to weather, etc. vs. flying a commercial airplane as an example
>>> something complicated, but not complex, as it involves predictable
>>> steps. I found the HBR article more compelling an explanation than what
>>> I've seen in the summit so far.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (04)
|