COMPLEXITY versus SIMPLICITY
| Collection | International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics |
|---|---|
| Year | 2004 |
| Vol. (num.) | 2(1) |
| ID | ◀ 566 ▶ |
| Object type | General information, Epistemology, ontology or semantics |
The concept of complexity evolved considerably during the 20th century. This historic process is thus described by R. LEFEVER and I. PRIGOGINE: “In the classical perspective, there was a clearcut distinction between what was considered to be simple and what had to be considered as complex: There was no hesitation about calling ”simple“ Newtonian laws of motion, perfect gas, or chemical reactions. Also, one would have called ”complex“ biological processes, and more so human activities such as described by economics or urban planning. In this perspective, the aim of classical science was to discover even in complex systems, some underlying simple level. This level would be the carrier of deterministic and time-reversible laws of nature: Future and past would play the same role. However, this basic level remained elusive. Today a far reaching reconceptualization of science is going on. Wherever we look, we find evolution, diversification and instabilities” (1986, p.2).
Systemics is, in many aspects, fundamentally a science of complexity. As a first step G. WEINBERG distinguishes:
- Organized simplicity (machines)
- Unorganized complexity (aggregates)
- Organized complexity (systems) (1975, p.18).
Roughly, organized simplicity corresponds to lineal deterministic machines (von FOERSTER's trivial machines).
Unorganized complexity corresponds to random interactions between a great number of elements and can be studied through statistical methods. Finally, organized complexity is proper to nonlineal systems and is the specific study domain of systemics.