Complexity: Metaphors, Models, and Reality

Complexity: Metaphors, Models, and Reality

ByGeorge A. Cowan, David Pines, David Meltzer

• Publisher: Westview Press
• Pages: 731
• Publication Date: 1999-11-15
• Source: girro(QQ: 7450911)
• ISBN-10: 0738202320
• ISBN-13: 9780738202327
• Binding: Paperback

  Product
  Description: girro

  The terms complexity, complex adaptive systems, and sciences of complexity are found often in recent scientific literature, reflecting the remarkable growth in collaborative academic research focused on complexity from the origin and dynamics of organisms to the largest social and political organizations. One of the great challenges in this field of research is to discover which features are essential and shared by all of the seemingly disparate systems that are described as complex. Is there sufficient synthesis to suggest the possibility of an overarching science of complexity This report describes current views on this subject held by various eminent scholars associated with the Santa Fe Institute.The physical sciences have traditionally been concerned with “simple” systems whose dynamics can be described in mathematical terms with precision and certainty. In contrast, the biological and social sciences are inevitably concerned with self-organized or social “complex” systems whose detailed behaviors appear to be unpredictable. The two categories differ greatly in size and diversity, prompting the late mathematician Stanislaus Ulam to remark that research on complex systems might be compared to the study of non-elephants. Nevertheless, certain integrative themes have begun to emerge.Rising activity in this field of research runs completely counter to the trend toward increasing fragmentation and specialization in the sciences. It has stimulated a resurgence of interest in a broad synthesis involving mathematics, computational science, physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, and the social sciences. The growth of effort in this very extended field has been greatly stimulated by the development of new computational tools that are capable of dealing with vast, interrelated databases. Many of the participants in complexity research feel that it is now time to reintegrate the fragmented interests of much of the academic community. The reader is encouraged to consider whether such views are sparking a historic renaissance of scholarship or represent a passing scientific diversion.

  Summary: Well..SOMEONE didn't get invited to an SFI conference..

  Rating: 5

  This is groundbreaking (and clearly very controversial) work. Read the review below: this stuff gets a rise out of people. Anyone wanting to become familiar with original, seminal studies from the complexity science movement will want this book.

  Summary: I laughed, I cried..

  Rating: 2

  Well..where to begin without going further back

  This book is a compendium of papers, most from members of the Sante Fe institute. That is, the papers are by the self-proclaimed "experts" in the field of complex adaptive systems (complexity as it is termed by some). Although published in 1999 it is mostly out of date as a reference but it stands as testament to something I think is more interesting than pure science.

  What we have here is a prime example of how dogma (religion) begins and sadly, impedes any chance for progress. At this point, perhaps I should suggest that anyone reading this who hasn't heard of Kuhn, Wittgenstein and Prigogine to go and read a bit. And then you need to understand that we have completed the whole genome-mapping fiasco and "discovered" something that goes against what the high gods of complexity, genetics and evolution have been preaching: we don't have more than 100,000 genomes we have 30,000.

  Ok, now back to the book. The papers, as I stated, are out of date. All interesting results here are tied back to the "magic" number of 100,000 genomes. That is simply due to the fact that according to the diverstity of cells and specific proteins in our bodies combined with present theories we need that many. So one would think, right away, that any new theory that is "more correct" than the old ones would quickly point out this large discrepancy.

  Well, no one did find this. Instead they just muddle around withsome nifty math and even more exciting computer simulations and then settle back to make pronouncements. And what bombastic statements the high priests of complexity pronounced! The best part of this book are the transcripts of discussions about the papers from the big names, notably Gell-Mann, Anderson and Kauffman.

  One would think that a bit of reading in philosophy would really have helped this lot to see beyond their noses. That is, how can there be a "true science" (uttered by one during a discussion) when science is simply a compression of knowledge and the whole idea of "truth" implies more compression This is laughable when your own theory says that you can never tell if something is optimally compressed (just read Chaitin and Kolmogorov); I ask again, how do you know you have a "true science"

  Yes, egos are rampant here and it is enough to make you alternately laugh and then cry now that we see how far off the mark the "science" is. There are slights on Freeman but really, Freeman has more "science" ("theory that matches observation" to quote Gell-Mann) than anyone in this collection. In fact, Anna Wise has more science in her books about brainwaves than this group.

  Disappointed You bet. I fail to see how winners of Nobel prizes and "Genius" awards could end up being so far off the mark. So in the end, I can only rate the intended content (science) as "2 stars" but the high comedy and drama make the historical content worth 5 out of 5. Enjoy it for that only!

  资源下载

  资源下载价格10元立即购买
  
  

  未经允许不得转载：电子书百科大全 » Complexity: Metaphors, Models, and Reality