Great question. In a complexity perspective, the laws
would be derived from system properties, not part details.
Why? How are you distinguishing "system properties" from
"part details."
For example, a 747 is a fairly complex system. One nut
taken from that same 747's gear assembly is clearly a
simple part. If I drop either the 747 or the nut, I will gain
the data necessary to describe how objects fall within a
gravitational field. The complexity of the 747 makes no
difference at all here; it would be relevant only if I wanted
to learn something about how the internal workings of
that system behave, as opposed to its gross externally-
visible properties. Moving up a few levels, I can also
observe/demonstrate the basic principles of aeronautics
through either watching that 747 in operation, watching
a Cessna 172 - although Cessna is undeniably a far simpler
system.
One would think, from considering most examples that
come to mind, that the best way to "derive laws" would
be through the observation of the SIMPLEST system which
provides sufficient data to do so. Or, in other words, one
should not bring in unnecessary complexity into an
experiment without having a good reason for doing so.
In particular those system properties which are emergent.
Precisely; but you do not need the full system to demonstrate
or derive ALL of its properties, only those which might be
considered to be "emergent" at that level of complexity.
For anything less than this, you're better off studying simpler
systems, since they have less potential for generating
irrelevant problems which would complicate the study of
these more basic properties. For example, if I want again
wished to study the BASIC principles of flight, I may be
better off with a much simpler aircraft than a 747, for the
simple reason that it will be easier to operate, more reliable,
and therefore will more readily get me the necessary data.
I would need to turn to the 747, or something similar, though,
if I specifically wanted to study, say, the behavior of autoland
systems in multiengine jet airliners. The complexity of the
system being studied must be sufficient to provide the
relevant data, but certainly should be no more complex than
that. So we still have not justified a belief that we should
always seek the most complex system possible for study.
For instance, a market system has certain emergent
system properties we all recognize. Adaptability, resilience
self tuning feedback mechanisms and so on.
Certainly - and if you wanted to study those, you would
certainly need to look at a sufficiently complex market.
If, on the other hand, you merely wanted to study the very
basics of economic transactions, watching a child's lemonade
stand doing business may suffice.
The minute you stop such a system to detail it's components
those emergent system properties /vanish/ into thin air.
They can only be studied while the system is operating
and cannot be discerned from a detailed look at the
system parts.
Yes - which again argues only for the need to study
complex systems in those cases where we are investigating
properties seen only in those systems, and not in simpler
cases.
And it is those 'ethereal' system properties which provide
the overall direction of the universe towards more order
over time.
Which "system properties" do this, and on what grounds do
you make the above assertion? Until you can identify
them, I am also not sure how you can get to the conclusion
that:
They are the most important properties of all
and they are completely invisible to classical objective
methods.
The most important behaviors or laws in the universe
cannot be revealed by the part details, only by an
intact and operating whole. By reducing to parts
first in order to understand the system, you end
up with countless specialties and an infinite
amount of unique data.
First of all - "most important" in what context? On
what scale? As judged by whom?
An example - the behavior of the force of gravity is
clearly a very important aspect of our universe, as
it controls the paths of moons, planets, stars, and even
entire galaxies; it literally shapes the universe. Yet the
"laws" which describe this behavior are actually rather
simple, and may to a very high degree of accuracy
be derived from observations of much simpler structures
than the universe as a whole. This, then, would seem to
be at least one example which contradicts the above
assertion. It may not be the case that ALL "important
behaviors" can be understood from the simpler cases,
but it is clear that at least one can, and I believe there are
other examples that will readily come to mind if you think
about it.
Complexity science, once you understand the core concepts
and have practiced applying it to different fields, can be
applied to just about any discipline at all.
Learn just one science and you learn...them all.
OK, so if this is true - what IS the single unified
description of the universe offered by this science?
If it is too complicated to outline here, then I would
submit that this strongly suggests that it is NOT a
fundamental behavior or "law," but instead is itself
derivable from simpler principles.
Ok, in the known universe. But life is certaintly complex enough
for us to grasp the concepts. And complexity science makes
it easy to visualize the various levels of complexity, in either
direction, by using emergence.
In that case - how has "complexity science"
explained life?
What emerges from life is the next higher level of complexity.
Intelligence emerges from life, and wisdom from collective
intelligence and so on. Maybe eventuall even a god will
emerge from the collective weight of human evolution.
What do you mean by the symbol "god?"
Study the output first, system behavior, as a means to
understand the components later. Instead of the other
way around. But this inverse frame of reference must
be rigorously applied at each step. Subjectivity replaces
objectivity, generic patterns replace precise measurements.
The future becomes the source of study, instead of the past.
And so on.
You have described your desired process, but I am
afraid this doesn't give us much to go on in terms of
why it should be preferred, or even what it actually means.
Why SHOULD "subjectivity replace objectivity"?
Unless you are using these terms differently in this context,
are you implying that there is NOT such a thing as a single,
shared, objective reality? If that is the case - if the
universe fundamentally subjective rather than objective -
there is very little sense in discussing any of this in the
first place, since we can't possibly be assured of any
common ground on which to base descriptions which
would be useful to more than a single person.
Bob M.
