relation to The theories of 'Emergence' and 'Complexity'

The 'physics of happening' looks at the same set patterns in natural , but is an antithesis of the theories of  'complexity' and 'emergence' developed at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere.  They focus on a 'push' structures that can be found in self-organization, and I focus on the 'pull' structures.  No doubt it nature takes both a little push & pull.    The philosophical origins of 'happening' are with ecosystems, the original 'general systems theory' movement and the dominant pre-1900 idea of the physical sciences, that disciplined observation and explanation are wonderful tools for studying something else.    I use math as a tool for reading patterns in complex natural systems, not for representing my ideas as what nature follows. There's a huge conceptual error in representing math, an image, as as doing anything more in nature than enabling us to affect things the way we want.  Explanation is wonderfully useful, but it's just wrong to reduce nature and life to it, especially as explanation gets good enough to fool you.   In his book describing the theory of 'Emergence' John Holland asks "How do living systems emerge from the laws of physics and chemistry?"  They simply don't.   The physical world 'develops' patterns we can use, perhaps, but those appearances don't come from nature following the patterns our particular point of view perceives.   I find theories promoting the rule driven character of natural causation painful to read.

On the other hand, Roger Levin in his book titled "Complexity" holds much the same theory as Holland does, but I've thoroughly enjoyed reading it.   He and all the people he chooses to talk to, including his talk with Holland, have their focus on the puzzle of the physical subject of natural systems.   I don't know if I could figure out quite why their computer (rule constructed) 'ecologies' seem to have a number of properties that are reminiscent of real ones, but I suppose it would be that they were designed to be like them by people having studied them in detail, and somehow allow the artificial ecology to develop its own rules.  Why Levin focuses on the 'edge of chaos' idea so weakly supported might be bothersome if it wasn't also a poetic interjection, playing off the mathematical idea, just where he's reaching for something to suggest some unusual natural properties.   The mathematical idea of chaos theory is that you have the same simple equation repeated over and over using output as input.  Fascinating complex patterns never found in nature, but also never previously seen in math and worthy of nature, suddenly appear.  I don't think physical systems operate by exceedingly methodical repetition of anything, except in some of our constructed examples.  Complex natural systems are built around expansive and of unordered mediums of exchange, find their creativity and flexibility with 'any old time' tolerance of lags and disconnects by trash picking the scattered leftovers of other things of any and all other kinds.    The way I see it natural systems are not controlled by impinging forces or driven by a particular frequency vibrator, but lazily feeding themselves, afloat in a sea.

One thing I would certainly agree on is that in terms of science we're up to something big.   I think we're all starting to study the roots of causation    For centuries science has carefully stayed as far away from that as possible.   Metaphorically, I'm sure we've spotted something and every leg, tail, trunk, floppy ear and tusk we grab is connected to the same elephant.   It think it would be much better if we agreed to refer to the physical things involved rather than continuing to speak as if nature was following our imaginary rules.   When we were not discussing causation it didn't actually matter, and the misstatement could be read either way and be just as useful.   That's no longer true.   Causation is not done by rules and measures, it's done by stuff, the very physical systems that are located right where you find them.  The fact is that nature evolves to the laws and rules we find 'imbedded' in it, not from them.   What's going on within and around us, the real stuff that our words and thoughts refer to, is not following rules we make up so we can function, but making behaviors we can sometimes recognize and then get help with from reading and following a rule or two.   If you watch the principle evidence of complex systems in nature, the transition from noise to continuity and back, marking the beginning and end of every event, you'll see.  The thing to notice to get my point of view is that things emerge by growth, within an open medium of exchange.  

ed. 2/03/06 3/11/06 5/2/06