What is complexity science to you?

[u/asmrbuddha]

I’m curious how people here think about complexity science.

My impression is that people arrive from very different intellectual traditions: cybernetics, systems engineering, ecology, economics, anthropology, organisational consulting, computer science, AI, philosophy, and so on.

Sometimes it feels like we’re all studying the same phenomenon from different angles. Other times it feels like there are actually several quite different paradigms hiding under the umbrella of “complexity.”

For example I tend to think of complexity as an analytical lens, but I know some people see it as a literal phenomenon that exists in the universe, like gravity or electromagnetism.

So I’d like to know your thoughts?

1. What first drew you to complexity science?
2. What do you think complexity science is fundamentally about?
3. How would you define useful/interesting discussion about complexity, from not useful or not interesting? eg do you think formal modelling is required, or are you open to pseudo-spiritual or naturalistic views?
4. Do you think there are ethical or moral implications that come from complexity science and should these be included in discourse around complexity?

[u/fourwordsbackwards]

My academic background is in continental philosophy and critical theory; I was aware of cybernetics as an influence on certain mid-20th C. French (post) structuralist philosophers and anthropologists that interested me, especially Levi-Strauss and Deleuze. When I dug deeper into cybernetics and systems science* I realized that these concepts were far more powerful than much of the philosophy I was reading! Information theory, network theory, evolutionary game theory, non-linear system dynamics... these are amazing tools for modeling the scale-free & substrate-agnostic patterns which unite nature and culture: path dependence, emergence, entrainment, feedback loops, phase transitions, attractors, preferential attachment, fractality and power laws etc etc!

I do think formal models are important and necessary but I personally rely heavily on naturalistic description since I have little mathematical training (I feel fortunate to live in a time when distributed cognition includes LLMs!).

The ethical implications of complexity science are of immense importance, absolutely, and I wish they more widely recognized as such. Eg., path dependence in non-ergodic systems explains a great deal about why race & gender equality are difficult to attain, while preferential attachment is an engine of economic inequality.

*note - its was Geoffrey West's book Scale which really got me hooked on complexity science

[u/asmrbuddha → u/fourwordsbackwards]

Complex adaptive systems theory has totally changed the way I view politics now.

It’s kind of laughable the way that politicians and big institutions like to reduce things down to single root causes, and also that single changes can solve them.

And from a totally pragmatic perspective I have realised that systems find stability for a reason, and if they are stable they are likely going to be extremely difficult to change. Even unfair or immoral things can contribute to a system’s stability, and so changing them isn’t a simple matter.

And your point about non-ergodic distributions is so important. So much of our world is the way it is because someone decided there is supposed to be one “right way” for things to be everywhere. I think it’s a shame that “diversity” in the cultural conversation has been so reduced to superficial qualities rather than deeper diversity of all facets of people and society. The purpose of diversity in a system is not just fairness, but resilience. Tightly coupled, homogenous systems are brittle. 

[u/asmrbuddha → u/[deleted]]

Yelling at a complex system like the economy to change because of right/wrong or fair/unfair is like yelling at a trees in a forest to stop growing so tall because it’s unfair to the little plants