1 / 78

REDUCTIONISM AND COMPLEXITY:CONTINUUM OR DICHOTOMY?

REDUCTIONISM AND COMPLEXITY:CONTINUUM OR DICHOTOMY?. DON MIKULECKY PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF PHYSIOLOGY AND SENIOR FELLOW IN THE CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF BIOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY-VCU http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/. ONE OF THE MAIN FUNCTIONS OF REDUCTIONISM IN SOCIETY.

tieve
Download Presentation

REDUCTIONISM AND COMPLEXITY:CONTINUUM OR DICHOTOMY?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. REDUCTIONISM AND COMPLEXITY:CONTINUUM OR DICHOTOMY? DON MIKULECKY PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF PHYSIOLOGY AND SENIOR FELLOW IN THE CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF BIOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY-VCU http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/

  2. ONE OF THE MAIN FUNCTIONS OF REDUCTIONISM IN SOCIETY • IF THE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT THEN HOW CAN A PERSON WHO WANTS NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN CORRUPTION BE A PARTICIPANT? • HE MUST REDUCE THE SYSTEM TO UNRELATED ENDEAVORS SO THAT HE CAN ESCAPE RECOGNIZING HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE CORRUPT WHOLE

  3. COMPLEXITY • REQUIRES A CIRCLE OF IDEAS AND METHODS THAT DEPART RADICALLY FROM THOSE TAKEN AS AXIOMATIC FOR THE PAST 300 YEARS • OUR CURRENT SYSTEMS THEORY, INCLUDING ALL THAT IS TAKEN FROM PHYSICS OR PHYSICAL SCIENCE, DEALS EXCLUSIVELY WITH SIMPLE SYSTEMS OR MECHANISMS • COMPLEX AND SIMPLE SYSTEMS ARE DISJOINT CATEGORIES

  4. COMPLEXITY VS COMPLICATION • Von NEUMAN THOUGHT THAT A CRITICAL LEVEL OF “SYSTEM SIZE” WOULD “TRIGGER” THE ONSET OF “COMPLEXITY” (REALLY COMPLICATION) • COMPLEXITY IS MORE A FUNCTION OF SYSTEM QUALITIES RATHER THAN SIZE • COMPLEXITY RESULTS FROM BIFURCATIONS -NOT IN THE DYNAMICS, BUT IN THE DESCRIPTION! • THUS COMPLEX SYSTEMS REQUIRE THAT THEY BE ENCODED INTO MORE THAN ONE FORMAL SYSTEM IN ORDER TO BE MORE COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD

  5. IN ORDER TO SEE FURTHER THAN BEFORE IT IS OFTEN NECESSARY TO STAND ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS!

  6. SOME OF MY GIANTS: • AHARON KATZIR-KATCHALSKY (died in terrorist massacre in Lod Airport 1972) • LEONARDO PEUSNER (alive and well in Argentina) • ROBERT ROSEN (died December 29, 1998)

  7. SOME REFERENCES • FOR A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ROSEN’S WORK: http://views.vcu.edu/complex/ • Pusner, Leonardo: Two books on network thermodynamics • My book: Application of network thermodynamics to problems in biomedical engineering, NYU Press, 1993

  8. Recent work: • New review:The Circle That Never Ends: Can Complexity Be Made Simple? In Complexity in Chemistry, Biology, and EcologyBonchev, Danail D.; Rouvray, Dennis (Eds.) 2005 • New Book: Into the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics and Life by: Eric D. Schneider and Dorion Sagan, University of Chicago Press, 2005

  9. THE MODELING RELATION: THE ESSENCE OF SCIENCE • ALLOWS US TO ASSIGN MEANING TO THE WORLD AROUND US • STANDS FOR OUR THINKING PROCESS • CAUSALITY IN THE NATURAL SYSTEM IS DEALT WITH THROUGH IMPLICATION IN A FORMAL SYSTEM • THERE IS AN ENCODING OF THE NATURAL SYSTEM INTO THE FORMAL SYSTEM AND A DECODING BACK • WHEN IT ALL HANGS TOGETHER WE HAVE A MODEL

  10. ENCODING NATURAL SYSTEM FORMAL SYSTEM CAUSAL EVENT MANIPULATION DECODING FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF HOW WE MAKE MODELS, A SCIENCE OF FRAMING

  11. WE HAVE A USEFUL MODEL WHEN AND ARE SATISFACTORY WAYS OF “UNDERSTANDING” THE CHANGE IN THE WORLD “OUT THERE”

  12. ENCODING NATURAL SYSTEM FORMAL SYSTEM CAUSAL EVENT IMPLICATION DECODING FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF HOW WE MAKE MODELS

  13. MORE ON THE MODELING RELATION • THE FORMAL SYSTEM DOES NOT INCLUDE INFORMATION ABOUT ENCODING AND/OR DECODING • THEREFORE MODELING WILL ALWAYS BE AN ART • ONLY IN THE NEWTONIAN PARADIGM DOES THE FORMAL SYSTEM BECOME THE NATURAL SYSTEM (ENCODING AND DECODING ARE AUTOMATIC) AND ALL THAT IS LEFT TO DO IS TO MEASURE THINGS

  14. WHY IS “OBJECTIVITY” A MYTH? (OR: WHY IS SCIENCE A BELIEF STRUCTURE) • THE FORMAL SYSTEM DOES NOT AND CAN NOT TELL US HOW TO ENCODE AND DECODE. (MODELING IS AN ART!) • THE FORMAL SYSTEM DOES NOT AND CAN NOT TELL US WHEN THE MODEL WORKS, THAT IS A JUDGEMENT CALL EVEN IF OTHER FORMALISMS ARE ENLISTED TO HELP (FOR EXAMPLE: STATISTICS) • MODELS EXIST IN A CONTEXT: A FRAME

  15. WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE MODELING RELATION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION INEVITABLE: • WE ARE TOO AFRAID OF “BELIEFS” (SCEPTICISM IS “IN”) • WE DEVELOPED THE MYTH OF “OBJECTIVITY”

  16. WHAT IS “FRAMING THE QUESTION”? • Based on the work of George Lakoff • Cognitive Linguistics • Frames are the mental structures that shape the way we see the world • Facts, data, models, etc. only have meaning in a context • Leads us to a scientific application of framing: Rosen’s theory of complexity

  17. Framing the question • Don’t think of an elephant • Impossibility of avoiding the frame • In science the dominant frame is reductionism and the associated mechanical thinking • The dominant modern manifestations include molecular biology and nonlinear dynamics

  18. WHY ARE THERE SO MANY DEFINITIONS OF COMPLEXITY? • SCIENTISTS FOCUS ON THE FORMAL DESCRIPTION RATHER THAN THE REAL WORLD • THE REAL WORLD IS COMPLEX • FORMAL SYSTEMS COME IN VARYING SHADES AND DEGREES OF COMPLICATION

  19. Reductionism has framed complexity theory • Rather than change methods we have the changed names for what we do • The consequences are significant • It is impossible for you to believe what is being taught in this lecture and to then simply add it to your repertoire • The reason is that in order to see the world in a new way you have to step out of the traditional frame and into a new one. Once done, you can never go back. The ability to reframe a question is the basis for change and broadening of ideas.

  20. FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM MANIPULATION CAUSAL EVENT FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO FRAME THE MODELING RELATION

  21. FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM MANIPULATION FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO FRAME THE MODELING RELATION

  22. WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE MODELING RELATION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION INEVITABLE: • WE MORE OR LESS FORGOT THAT THERE WAS AN ENCODING AND DECODING

  23. WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE MODELING RELATION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION INEVITABLE: IT FRAMED THE QUESTIN • THE “REAL WORLD” REQUIRES MORE THAN ONE “FORMAL SYSTEM” TO MODEL IT (THERE IS NO “UNIVERSAL MODEL”)

  24. Syntax vs Semantics • The map is not the territory • An equation is just an equation without interpretation • This means we use formalisms in a context • This context dependence also exists in nature • This is one reason why there can never be a largest model

  25. Context dependence necessarily introduces circularity • A process happens in a context • The process usually changes that context • If the context changes the process usually changes as a result. • Living systems are replete with examples of this

  26. SELF-REFERENCE, CIRCULARITY AND THE GENOME REPLICATION ENZYMES DNA PROTEINS TRANSCRIPTION

  27. HOMEOSTASIS MILLEU FOR CELLS, TISSUES AND ORGANS TISSUES AND ORGANS CELLS

  28. CAN WE GET RID OF SELF-REFERENCE, THAT IS, CIRCULARITY? • IT HAS BEEN TRIED • IT FAILED • THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO “GO AROUND” IT – THAT IS TO IGNORE CASES WHERE IT POPS UP • WHAT IF IT IS VERY COMMON?

  29. WHAT IS COMPLEXITY? • TOO MANY DEFINITIONS, SOME CONFLICTING • OFTEN INTERCHANGED WITH “COMPLICATED” • HAS A REAL MEANING BUT AFTER THE QUESTION IS REFRAMED • THAT MEANING ITSELF IS COMPLEX(THIS IS SELF-REFERENTIAL: HOW CAN WE DEFINE “COMPLEX” USING “COMPLEX”?)

  30. ROSEN’S CONCEPT FOR COMPLEXITY: A NEW FRAME Complexity is the property of a real world system that is manifest in the inability of any one formalism being adequate to capture all its properties. It requires that we find distinctly different ways of interacting with systems. Distinctly different in the sense that when we make successful models, the formal systems needed to describe each distinct aspect are NOT derivable from each other

  31. The Mexican sierra [fish] has "XVII-15-IX" spines in the dorsal fin. These can easily be counted ... We could, if we wished, describe the sierra thus: "D. XVII-15-IX; A. II-15-IX," but we could see the fish alive and swimming, feel it plunge against the lines, drag it threshing over the rail, and even finally eat it. And there is no reason why either approach should be inaccurate. Spine-count description need not suffer because another approach is also used. Perhaps, out of the two approaches we thought there might emerge a picture more complete and even more accurate that either alone could produce. -- John Steinbeck, novelist, with Edward Ricketts, marine biologist (1941)

  32. COMPLEX NO LARGEST MODEL WHOLE MORE THAN SUM OF PARTS CAUSAL RELATIONS RICH AND INTERTWINED GENERIC ANALYTIC  SYNTHETIC NON-FRAGMENTABLE NON-COMPUTABLE REAL WORLD SIMPLE LARGEST MODEL WHOLE IS SUM OF PARTS CAUSAL RELATIONS DISTINCT N0N-GENERIC ANALYTIC = SYNTHETIC FRAGMENTABLE COMPUTABLE FORMAL SYSTEM COMPLEX SYSTEMS VS SIMPLE MECHANISMS

  33. An Example of Reframing the question to get an answer : The work of Robert Rosen • What is life? • Why is an organism different from a machine?

  34. ROBERT ROSEN: THE WELL POSED QUESTION AND ITS ANSWER-WHY ARE ORGANISMS DIFFERENT FROM MACHINES? • Rosen used relational ideas to apply category theory to living systems • These were called “Metabolism/Repair” systems oo M-R systems • Causal mappings were diagramed a syntax involving category theory mappings and the semantics were used along with this to apply the causal interpretaion • The result was a clear demonstration that the machine and the organism are disjoint in this context • An organism is closed to efficient cause while a machine is not

  35. AMONG OTHER CONCLUSION THAT CAN BE DRAWN FROM THIS ELEGANT STUDY IS ONE THAT MIGHT SEEM SURPRISING • Since machines are causally impoverished, they lead to an infinite regress of causes. • Descartes led us to use the machine metaphor for organisms • In so doing he made a concept of God necessary • Today, “Intelligent Design” is based on this erroneous Cartesian metaphor: The Machine Metaphor • Real orgainisms are closed causually and escape this fallacy

  36. WHAT IS SCIENCE? • HAS MANY DEFINTIONS • SOME OF THESE ARE IN CONFLICT • SCIENCE IS A BELIEF STRUCTURE • SCIENCE OF METHOD VS SCIENCE OF CONTENT

  37. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MAKE “COMPLEXITY THEORY” NECESSARY? (WHAT HAS “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” FAILED TO EXPLAIN?) • WHY IS THE WHOLE MORE THAN THE SOME OF THE PARTS? • SELF-REFERENCE AND CIRCULARITY • THE LIFE/ORGANISM PROBLEM • THE MIND/BODY PROBLEM

  38. CIRCULARITY (SELF-REFERENCE) CAUSES PROBLEMS FOR LOGIC AND SCIENCE • I AM A CORINTHIAN • ALL CORINTHIANS ARE LIARS • OR • “THE STATEMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE IS FALSE”-ON BOTH SIDES

  39. WHERE DO CELLS COME FROM? • DNA? • GENES? • PROTEINS? • OTHER CELLS? • SPONTANEOUS GENERATION?

  40. THE CELL THEORY • CELLS COME FROM OTHER CELLS

  41. WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE QUESTION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION INEVITABLE: • THE MACHINE METAPHOR TELLS US TO ASK “HOW?” • REAL WORLD COMPLEXITY TELLS US TO ASK “WHY?”

  42. THE FOUR BECAUSES: WHY A HOUSE? • MATERIAL: THE STUFF IT’S MADE OF • EFFICIENT: IT NEEDED A BUILDER • FORMAL: THERE WAS A BLUEPRINT • FINAL: IT HAS A PURPOSE

  43. WHY IS THE WHOLE MORE THAN THE SOME OF THE PARTS? • BECAUSE REDUCING A REAL SYSTEM TO ATOMS AND MOLECULES LOOSES IMPORTANT THINGS THAT MAKE THE SYSTEM WHAT IT IS • BECAUSE THERE IS MORE TO REALITY THAN JUST ATOMS AND MOLECULES (ORGANIZATION, PROCESS, QUALITIES, ETC.)

  44. SELF-REFERENCE AND CIRCULARITY • THE “LAWS” OF NATURE THAT TRADITIONAL SCIENCE TEACHES ARE ARTIFACTS OF A LIMITED MODEL • THE REAL “RULES OF THE GAME” ARE CONTEXT DEPENDENT AND EVER CHANGING- THEY MAKE THE CONTEXT AND THE CONTEXT MAKES THEM (SELF-REFERENCE)

  45. EXAMPLE: THE LIFE/ORGANISM PROBLEM • LIFE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAWS OF PHYSICS • PHYSICS DOES NOT PREDICT LIFE • LIVING CELLS COME FROM OTHER LIVING CELLS • AN ORGANISM MUST INVOLVE CLOSED LOOPS OF CAUSALITY • LIFE DOES INVOLVE PURPOSE: See Into the cool

  46. Complexity is inescapable even in reductionism • Thermodynamics is an example of how attempts to remove complexity from reductionist thought can not succeed • The nature of thermodynamic reasoning had resisted this tendency very well and we will look at why this is so

  47. SOME CONSEQUENCES • REDUCTIONISM DID SERIOUS DAMAGE TO THERMODYNAMICS • THERMODYNAMICS IS MORE IN HARMONY WITH TOPOLOGICAL MATHEMATICS THAN IT IS WITH ANALYTICAL MATHEMATICS • THUS TOPOLOGY AND NOT MOLECULAR STATISTICS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL TOOL

  48. EXAMPLES: • CAROTHEODRY’S PROOF OF THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS • THE PROOF OF TELLEGEN’S THEOREM AND THE QUASI-POWER THEOREM • THE PROOF OF “ONSAGER’S” RECIPROCITY THEOREM

  49. THE NATURE OF THERMODYNAMIC REASONING • THERMODYNAMICS IS ABOUT THOSE PROPERTIES OF SYSTEMS WHICH ARE TRUE INDEPENDENT OF MECHANISM • THEREFORE WE CAN NOT LEARN TO DISTINGUISH MECHANISMS BY THERMODYNAMIC REASONING

More Related