Disentangling Complexity from Randomness and Chaos

Abstract

This study aims to disentangle complexity from randomness and chaos, and to present a definition of complexity that emphasizes its epistemically distinct qualities. I will review existing attempts at defining complexity and argue that these suffer from two major faults: a tendency to neglect the underlying dynamics and to focus exclusively on the phenomenology of complex systems; and linguistic imprecisions in describing these phenomenologies. I will argue that the tendency to discuss phenomenology removed from the underlying dynamics is the main root of the difficulties in distinguishing complex from chaotic or random systems. In my own definition, I will explicitly try to avoid these pitfalls. The theoretical contemplations in this paper will be tested on a sample of five models: the random Kac ring, the chaotic CA30, the regular CA90, the complex CA110 and the complex Bak-Sneppen model. Although these modelling studies are restricted in scope and can only be seen as preliminary, they still constitute on of the first attempts to investigate complex systems comparatively.

Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences

“…The exact definition is still debated in complexity science itself, and so are its possible measures [13], [14]. In very general terms, however, the complexity of a system is linked to the number of elements involved, their diversity, the number and non-linearity of interactions between them, the cohesiveness of internal versus external relationships (which determines how isolated the system is), the distance from thermodynamic equilibrium [15].…”

“Waiting for Carnot”: Information and complexity

“…However, as West (, p. 14) puts it “The trouble is, we don't have a unified, conceptual framework for addressing questions of complexity. We don't know what kind of data we need, nor how much, or what critical questions we should be asking”; for technical examination of this point, see Badii and Politi (), Feldman and Crutchfield (), Ellis (), Mitchell (), Zuchowski (), Gershenson and Fernández (), Gao, Liu, Zhang, Hu, and Cao (), and Theurer (); and for a gentler introduction see Holland ().…”

One-Parameter Fisher–Rényi Complexity: Notion and Hydrogenic Applications

“…We all have an intuitive sense of what complexity means. In the last two decades an increasing number of efforts have been published [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] to refine our intuitions about complexity into precise, scientific concepts, pointing out a large amount of open problems. Nevertheless there is not a consensus for the term complexity nor whether there is a simple core to complexity.…”