Skip to main content

In a mechanistic world, cause is always direct.  An agent acts and we see the result.  In a world that is complex this is not the case.  causes are many, interacting and often the removal of one factor can be compensated for by a self organization of the system so that it is hardly missed.  A good example of this is the "war on drugs" (Meaning illegal drugs rather than the ones sold as medicine).  The idea that a dealer is a real cause of the problem (a direct cause) is easily overshadowed by arresting that person only to find that their function in the system is taken over; possibly by someone more effective and more able to avoid arrest. In an human organism we often attack a problem with a drug (legal) using it as a "magic bullet" only to find that the system has other ways to accomplish  the result that was stopped by that drug.  I once did the computer modelling in a cancer chemotherapy study headed by the director of the Massey Cancer Institute at the Medical College of Virginia where we were faced with this amazing ability of cancer cells to adapt to what we were trying to do and had to design a more complex approach to deal with a complex causal system.   This is the realm in which George Lakoff's approach to politics dwells as well as Rosen's causal models.  For that reason it is worth s[pending more time understanding the nature of cause in our complex real world.  Read on and I'll share some more of what this entails.

By far the the most difficult problem with scrapping the almost useless direct cause mindset is that it fits so well with reductionist thinking.  If the world were closer to the reductionist model you could break it down to its parts and look at the way parts interact a few at a time.  What could possibly be wrong with that?  The most obvious answer is that the world is not constructed that way nor does it work as if it were.  I am taking ideas here from Rosen's books Anticipatory Systems, Life Itself and Essays on Life Itself.  I am also responding to difficulties some of our Kossites have expressed with the newness of these ideas to  them.

The issues we are discussing can not be broken apart just like any complex system is unable to be understood that way... The way we can get around that is by repetition and multiple diverse examples.  So here we go!

Why complex systems are not computable is tied to the inability to reduce them to material parts.

This is a big step.  It requires seeing that ideas expressed here as possible ways we might compute these systems miss the mark.  It also requires seeing why the idea that physics can deal with these issues is just not right.  So how can we say this with the assurance we do?  The answer is simple once you get rid of some baggage you are probably carrying from courses in school, things in the media, etc.  At the level of the biochemical charts and the physiology textbooks we are confronted with a myriad of detail that defies being put into simple algorithms.  If that is true we can not build a big model of the cell or any other living system. (My apologies to those breaking their special parts trying to do this!)  How do I come about the right to speak about this?  My 76th birthday is Friday and I spent a significant part of my life constructing some very impressive computer models of some very complicated living systems from the molecular level on up to the ecosystem level.  Now maybe I'm just not smart enough?  Well, from the record I seem to have been looked on as smarter than most who made similar efforts.  Ok then what made me stop these attempts to get at useful ways of dealing with my subject matter by modeling details on the computer?  (At this point I have to tell you that I once introduced my self when giving a talk  in this way-"Hello, My name is Don Mikulecky and I am a recovering reductionist.  Maybe we need a 12 step program here?)  Now the answer is simple.  The important relationships neither exist at that level nor can they be formulated at this level.  Rosen made an important breakthrough to solve this problem.  He simple stopped looking at the parts and the physics they carried as baggage and he began to talk about something akin to "organization."

That may sound simple enough, but it is a big step.  The organization he found we needed to focus on was the very organization of the system that gave answers to causal questions about entailment.  Entailment is sort of a fancy way of talking about the answers to"why?".  (Forgive me for a very big oversimplification.)  Those answers do not come from looking at the way the molecules are organized they come from looking at what the system is doing, its function!  Not only that but the function is only there when the system is actively doing its thing!  Dead systems are totally without the essential information.  you can stain them, look in microscopes, etc. but what you need to know is long gone!

Rosen's next move was as brilliant as the others he devised a modeling method for function based on what we see when the system is doing its thing.  He called these functional components.  These functional components were the "actors" in his Metabolism, Repair (M,R) models.  Their causal relationships were then shown to effect closure in causal models in distinction to the way functional components relate in a machine.

I hope this helps you understand why organisms can not be computed.  It is because the functional components (which do not map 1:1 to the material parts) are involved in closed loops of causality and these can never be reduced to algorithms for computation.  Beyond that fundamental restriction is the inability to find algorithms that relate the functional components to the material parts since these relationships are not 1:1.  (Think about the war on drugs example above).

I'm going to stop here for now and let this be something to chew on.  I'll get back to it in the next diaries.  Let me warn you that Friday's installment will be a digression because I always do a special diary on my birthday.  I really don't feel like 76 when I'm writing.  I did working in the yard today.  Here's a link to the last diary and through it you can link you way back through the series:Reading Ramblings: "Relational Biology" has its roots in "Topology". What does this mean?

Originally posted to Readers and Book Lovers on Tue Mar 20, 2012 at 08:59 PM PDT.

Also republished by Systems Thinking.


organisms are not compuable

0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
75%6 votes
25%2 votes
0%0 votes

| 8 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (7+ / 0-)

    An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Tue Mar 20, 2012 at 08:59:03 PM PDT

  •  all biz school students need ecology (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larsstephens, linkage, don mikulecky

    they're given extremely simplistic models and formulas to learn and that gets them into a job. seeing examples of extremely complicated but interdependent and interrelated systems that can't be quantified is what they need to put it in perspective.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and partisan lying by broadcasting sports on Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Tue Mar 20, 2012 at 10:10:09 PM PDT

  •  Happy B-Day in advance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    don mikulecky

    Congrats on the 76th.

    Love = Awareness of mutually beneficial exchange across semi-permeable boundaries. Political and economic systems either amplify or inhibit Love.

    by Bob Guyer on Wed Mar 21, 2012 at 07:21:03 AM PDT

  •  Attempts to deal with feral cat populations (0+ / 0-)

    ..have moved in this direction: many such efforts have a policy of spay and release on the assumption that removing a stray permanently from a local population just leaves a space to be filled.   Having a spayed animal occupying ecological and behavioral space in the area, but not reproducing, is found to be more effective than permanent removal.

    A principle to ponder when constructing any number of social interventions.  

    Humans in general are not good at seeing secondary and tertiary effects but one difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are somewhat more open to the notion of cooperating with a system rather than breaking it in order to "fix" it....clean needle programs for example, where a conservative is more likely to see furnishing clean needles to addicts as simply condoning their behavior.

    We are the principled ones, remember? We don't get to use the black hats' tricks even when it would benefit us. Political Compass: -6.88, -6.41

    by bmcphail on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:20:57 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site