Transcript IF THE WHOLE WORLD IS COMPLEX, WHY BOTHER? D. C. MIKULECKY PROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGY VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY http://views.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/

IF THE WHOLE WORLD IS COMPLEX,
WHY BOTHER?
D. C. MIKULECKY
PROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGY
VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY
http://views.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/
WHAT I HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH





PROVIDE A UNIQUE, WORKABLE CONCEPT OF COMPLEXITY
MAKE A CLEAR DISTICTION BETWEEN THE REAL WORLD
AND THOSE FORMAL THINGS WE DO TO TRY TO MODEL IT
SHOW HOW THE FORMAL DESCRIPTION OF THE REAL
WORLD REDUCES IT TO SIMPLE MECHANISMS
PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF BOTH MECHANISTIC AND
RELATIONAL MODELS OF THE WORLD
USE THE DEFINITION OF ORGANISM TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT
CAN BE DONE BY STEPPING OUT OF THE TRADITIONAL
FRAMEWORK
CAN WE DEFINE COMPLEXITY?
Complexity is the property of a real world
system that is manifest in the inability of any
one formalism being adequate to capture all
its properties. It requires that we find
distinctly different ways of interacting with
systems. Distinctly different in
the sense that when we make successful
models, the formal systems needed to
describe each distinct aspect are NOT
derivable from each other
COMPLEXITY VS COMPLICATION




Von NEUMAN THOUGHT THAT A CRITICAL LEVEL
OF “SYSTEM SIZE” WOULD “TRIGGER” THE ONSET
OF “COMPLEXITY” (REALLY COMPLICATION)
COMPLEXITY IS MORE A FUNCTION OF SYSTEM
QUALITIES RATHER THAN SIZE
COMPLEXITY RESULTS FROM BIFURCATIONS -NOT
IN THE DYNAMICS, BUT IN THE DESCRIPTION!
THUS COMPLEX SYSTEMS REQUIRE THAT THEY
BE ENCODED INTO MORE THAN ONE FORMAL
SYSTEM IN ORDER TO BE MORE COMPLETELY
UNDERSTOOD
NATURAL VS FORMAL SYSTEMS




THE REAL WORLD IS COMPLEX
WE HAVE TREATED IT FORMALLY AS IF IT
WERE SIMPLE
THE RESULT IS THE “DISCOVERY” OF
COMPLEXITY, EMERGENCE,ETC.
THE IDEA IS BEST SEEN USING THE
MODELING RELATION
THE MODELING RELATION: THE
ESSENCE OF SCIENCE





ALLOWS US TO ASSIGN MEANING TO THE WORLD
AROUND US
A “MODEL” OF OUR THINKING PROCESS
CAUSALITY IN THE NATURAL SYSTEM IS DEALT
WITH THROUGH IMPLICATION IN A FORMAL
SYSTEM
THERE IS AN ENCODING OF THE NATURAL
SYSTEM INTO THE FORMAL SYSTEM AND A
DECODING BACK
WHEN IT ALL HANGS TOGETHER WE HAVE A
MODEL
THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL
OF HOW WE MAKE MODELS
NATURAL
SYSTEM
ENCODING
CAUSAL
EVENT
IMPLICATION
DECODING
NATURAL
SYSTEM
FORMAL
SYSTEM
FORMAL
SYSTEM
WE HAVE A USEFUL MODEL
WHEN
ARE SATISFACTORY WAYS OF “UNDERSTANDING”
THE CHANGE IN THE WORLD “OUT THERE”
THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL
OF HOW WE MAKE MODELS
NATURAL
SYSTEM
ENCODING
CAUSAL
EVENT
MANIPULATION
DECODING
NATURAL
SYSTEM
FORMAL
SYSTEM
FORMAL
SYSTEM
WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID
TO THE MODELING RELATION
FORMAL
SYSTEM
NATURAL
MANIPULATION
SYSTEM
CAUSAL
EVENT
FORMAL
SYSTEM
NATURAL
SYSTEM
WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID
TO THE MODELING RELATION
FORMAL
NATURAL
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
MANIPULATION
FORMAL
NATURAL
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
MORE ON THE MODELING RELATION



THE FORMAL SYSTEM DOES NOT INCLUDE
INFORMATION ABOUT ENCODING AND/OR
DECODING
THEREFORE MODELING WILL ALWAYS BE
AN ART
ONLY IN THE NEWTONIAN PARADIGM DOES
THE FORMAL SYSTEM BECOME THE
NATURAL SYSTEM (ENCODING AND
DECODING ARE AUTOMATIC) AND ALL THAT
IS LEFT TO DO IS TO MEASURE THINGS
SCIENCE REDUCED THE WORLD TO
SIMPLE MECHANISMS




THE USUAL SCIENTIFIC PICTURE OF
REALITY IS A MECHANISM
DEFICIENT IN CAUSAL RELATIONS
FRAGMENTABLE TO ATOMS AND
MOLECULES
NOT “GENERIC” BUT TREATED AS IF
THEY WERE
COMPLEXITY



REQUIRES A CIRCLE OF IDEAS AND METHODS
THAT DEPART RADICALLY FROM THOSE TAKEN AS
AXIOMATIC FOR THE PAST 300 YEARS
OUR CURRENT SYSTEMS THEORY, INCLUDING ALL
THAT IS TAKEN FROM PHYSICS OR PHYSICAL
SCIENCE, DEALS EXCLUSIVELY WITH SIMPLE
SYSTEMS OR MECHANISMS
COMPLEX AND SIMPLE SYSTEMS ARE DISJOINT
CATEGORIES
COMPLEX SYSTEMS VS
SIMPLE MECHANISMS









COMPLEX
NO LARGEST MODEL
WHOLE MORE THAN SUM
OF PARTS
CAUSAL RELATIONS RICH
AND INTERTWINED
GENERIC
ANALYTIC  SYNTHETIC
NON-FRAGMENTABLE
NON-COMPUTABLE
REAL WORLD









SIMPLE
LARGEST MODEL
WHOLE IS SUM OF PARTS
CAUSAL RELATIONS
DISTINCT
N0N-GENERIC
ANALYTIC = SYNTHETIC
FRAGMENTABLE
COMPUTABLE
FORMAL SYSTEM
GENERICITY AND SURROGACY

GENERIC PROPERTIES ARE THOSE
POSSESED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF A
CLASS (AS OPPOSED TO SPECIAL
PROPERTIES WHICH DISTINGUISH THE
MEMBERS OF A CLASS)

SURROGACY IS THE ABILITY TO
EXTRAPOLATE ONE’S MEASUREMENTS ON
A FEW INDIVIDUALS TO THE GROUP
COMPLEXITY AND
EMERGENCE

THE GENERIC ASPECT OF REAL
SYSTEMS IS THAT THEY ARE ALL
COMPLEX

THIS COMPLEXITY WORKS AGAINST
SURROGACY AND LEADS TO THE
NOTION OF EMERGENCE
WHY IS ORGANIZATION SPECIAL? BEYOND
MERE ATOMS AND MOLECULES



IS THE WHOLE MORE THAN THE SUM
OF ITS PARTS?
IF IT IS THERE IS SOMETHING THAT IS
LOST WHEN WE BREAK IT DOWN TO
ATOMS AND MOLECULES
THAT “SOMETHING” MUST EXIST
WHAT IS ORGANIZATION?
DICTIONARY DEFINITION:
NOUN:
1. THE ACT OR PROCESS OF BEING
ORGANIZED
2.THE CONDITION OR MANNER OF BEING
ORGANIZED
(ALSO ASSOCIATION OR SOCIETY AND ITS
PERSONNEL)
TO ORGANIZE
DICTIONARY DEFINITION:
VERB:
1. TO CAUSE OR DEVELOP AN ORGANIC
STRUCTURE
2. TO ARRANGE OR FORM INTO A
COHERENT UNITYOR FUNCTIONING
WHOLE, TO INTEGRATE
3. TO ARRANGE ELEMENTS INTO A
WHOLE OF INTERDEPENDENT PARTS
NOUN OR VERB OR ADJECTIVE?





AN ORGANIZED DESK
AN ORGANIZED CORPORATION
AN ORGANIZED AUTOMOBILE
AN ORGANIZED FROG
AN ORGANIZED ECOSYSTEM
WHAT MAKES BIOLOGICAL
ORGANIZATION UNIQUE?







SELF-REFERENCE
CONTINGENCY
PARALLEL DISTRIBUTION
MAPPINGS ARE MANY TO MANY RATHER
THAN ONE TO ONE
CAUSALITY IS INTERTWINED
CATABOLISM AND ANABOLISM ARE
BOTH IMPORTANT
MECHANISMS ARE SPECIAL
EVEN IN THE WORLD OF MECHANISMS THERE
ARETHE SEEDS OF COMPLEXITY THEORY



THERMODYNAMIC REASONING
OPEN SYSTEMS THERMODYNAMICS
NETWORK THERMODYNAMICS
THE NATURE OF
THERMODYNAMIC REASONING

THERMODYNAMICS IS ABOUT THOSE
PROPERTIES OF SYSTEMS WHICH
ARE TRUE INDEPENDENT OF
MECHANISM

THEREFORE WE CAN NOT LEARN TO
DISTINGUISH MECHANISMS BY
THERMODYNAMIC REASONING
THERMODYNAMICS OF OPEN
SYSTEMS



THE NATURE OF THERMODYNAMIC
REASONING
HOW CAN LIFE FIGHT ENTROPY?
WHAT ARE THERMODYNAMIC
NETWORKS?
NETWORKS IN NATURE

NATURE EDITORIAL: VOL 234, DECEMBER 17, 1971,
pp380-381

“KATCHALSKY AND HIS COLLEAGUES SHOW, WITH
EXAMPLES FROM MEMBRANE SYSTEMS, HOW
THE TECHNIQUES DEVELOPED IN ENGINEERING
SYSTEMS MIGHT BE APPLIED TO THE EXTREMELY
HIGHLY CONNECTED AND INHOMOGENEOUS
PATTERNS OF FORCES AND FLUXES WHICH ARE
CHARACTERISTIC OF CELL BIOLOGY”
MY BOOK:



APPLICATION OF NETWORK
THERMODYNAMICS TO PROBLEMS IN
BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, NYU
PRESS, 1993
PREFACE, CONTENTS AND
REFERENCES ARE ON MY WEB PAGE
http://views.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/
SOME PUBLISHED NETWORK MODELS OF
PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS





SR
(BRIGGS,FEHER)
GLOMERULUS
(OKEN)
ADIPOCYTE
GLUCOSE
TRANSPORT AND
METABOLISM (MAY)
FROG SKIN MODEL
(HUF)
TOAD BLADDER
(MINZ)



KIDNEY
(FIDELMAN,WATTLI
NGTON)
FOLATE
METABOLISM
(GOLDMAN, WHITE)
ATP SYNTHETASE
(CAPLAN,
PIETROBON,
AZZONE)
AN EXAMPLE: SODIUM
TRANSPORTING EPITHELIA

CAN BE GROWN IN CULTURE

HAVE A DISTINCT ORGANIZATION WHICH IS
NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT FOR THEIR
FUNCTION

UNDERGO A TRANSFORMATION AS THE
EPITHELIUM DEVELOPS IN CULTURE
An Epithelial Membrane in
Cartoon Form:
A Network Model of Coupled Salt and
Volume Flow Through an Epithelium
WHAT IS THE NETWORK
THERMODYNAMIC MODEL?

IT CAPTURES ORGANIZATION AS THE
NETWORK’S TOPOLOGY

SPHERICAL CELL - SIMPLE TOPOLOGY

FUNCTIONAL EPITHELIUM - SAME CELL
DEVELOPS A MORE COMPLICATED
TOPOLOGY
LIMITS OF THE NETWORK
THERMODYNAMIC MODEL



IT CAN MODEL EITHER CASE, BUT
THESE MODELS CONTAIN NO
INFORMATION ABOUT WHY ONE
TRANSFORMS INTO THE OTHER
IT CAN NOT MODEL THE TRANSITION
AS WELL
THE REAL SYSTEM IS COMPLEX
MISSING ASPECTS OF THE
TRANSITION TO BE MODELED

CELL SIGNALLING EVENTS

NUCLEAR EVENT

MECHANICAL EVENTS

ONSET OF “EMERGENT” FUNCTION
WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?



FORMALISMS HAVE LIMITS (GÖDEL)
THEREFORE ONE FORMALISM IS NOT
ENOUGH
MECHANISTIC FORMALISMS ARE
INADEQUATE FOR CERTAIN
PROPERTIES, IN PARTICULAR
CHANGES IN ORGANIZATION
WHAT ABOUT OTHER
FORMALISMS?

RELATIONAL

OTHERS
THE RELATIONAL APPROACH
TO A COMPLEX REALITY



FOCUS ON THE ORGANIZATION
DEVELOP A SET OF FUNCTIONAL
COMPONENTS WHICH CAPTURE THAT
ORGANIZATION
UTILIZE THE CAUSAL RELATIONS
RESULTING FROM ANSWERING
“WHY?”
FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS




MUST POSSESS ENOUGH IDENTITY TO BE
CONSIDERED A “THING”
MUST BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE PROPERTIES
FROM LARGER SYSTEMS TO WHICH IT MAY
BELONG
ITS FORMAL IMAGE IS A MAPPING
f: A -----> B
THIS INTRODUCES A NEW KIND OF
“DYNAMICS” : RELATIONAL
THE FOUR BECAUSES: WHY A
HOUSE?




MATERIAL: THE STUFF IT’S MADE OF
EFFICIENT: IT NEEDED A BUILDER
FORMAL: THERE WAS A BLUEPRINT
FINAL: IT HAS A PURPOSE
METABOLISM/REPAIR SYSTEMS





BASED ON INPUT/OUTPUT
REPRESENTATIONS OF SYSTEMS
MORE ABSTRACT
ALLOW CAUSALITY TO BE REPRESENTED
LEAD TO NEW INFORMATION
ARE BASED ON RECOGNITION THAT
BUILDING UP AND TEARING DOWN ARE
PART OF THE LIFE PROCESS
THE IMPORTANCE OF
CATABOLISM AND ANABOLISM




NO STRUCTURE IS PERMANENT
ADAPTABILITY AND CHANGE
INHERENT
NEEDS SPECIAL TYPE OF
ORGANIZATION
IMPORTANT FOR UNDERSTANDING
EVOLUTION, DEVELOPMENT, AND
HEALING
THE RELATIONAL REPRESENTATION





INVOLVES MAPPINGS
METABOLISM IS f: A  B
A REPRESENTS METABOLITES WHICH
CAN ALSO EXCHANGE WITH THE
ENVIRONMENT
B REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF
METABOLISM
f IS A MAPPING FROM A TO B
THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS



A IS THE MATERIAL CAUSE OF B
(DOTTED ARROW)
f IS THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF B
OTHER COMPONENTS FOR REPAIR
AND REPLICATION COME IN BECAUSE
THESE COMPONENTS HAVE A FINITE
LIFETIME: CATABOLISM AND
ANABOLISM OR “TURNOVER”
ROSEN’S RELATIONAL MODEL
OF THE ORGANISM
f
A
B

ROSEN’S RELATIONAL MODEL
OF THE ORGANISM

f
A
B

ROSEN’S RELATIONAL MODEL
OF THE ORGANISM
f
A
B

ORGANISMS

ARE COMPLEX SYSTEMS

ARE CLOSED TO EFFICIENT CAUSE

ARE AUTOPOIETIC UNITIES
SOME CONSEQUENCES



REDUCTIONISM DID SERIOUS DAMAGE TO
THERMODYNAMICS
THERMODYNAMICS IS MORE IN HARMONY
WITH TOPOLOGICAL MATHEMATICS THAN IT
IS WITH ANALYTICAL MATHEMATICS
THUS TOPOLOGY AND NOT MOLECULAR
STATISTICS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL TOOL
EXAMPLES:



CAROTHEODRY’S PROOF OF THE
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
THE PROOF OF TELLEGEN’S
THEOREM AND THE QUASI-POWER
THEOREM
THE PROOF OF “ONSAGER’S”
RECIPROCITY THEOREM
RELATIONAL NETWORKS




THROW AWAY THE PHYSICS, KEEP THE
ORGANIZATION
DYNAMICS BECOMES A MAPPING BETWEEN
SETS
TIME IS IMPLICIT
USE FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS-WHICH
DO NOT MAP INTO ATOMS AND MOLECULES
1:1 AND WHICH ARE IRREDUCABLE
THE NEW VITALISM

LIVING SYSTEMS POSESS A TYPE OF
ORGANIZATION WHICH NON-LIVING
SYSTEMS DO NOT

THIS BIOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION
WILL ALWAYS DEFY FORMALIZATIONIT HAS NON-COMPUTABLE
COMPONENTS