Advertisement

Nonlinear Modeling: Lessons Learned and Room for Improvement in the M&S Literature

  • E. Dante SuarezEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 209)

Abstract

The field of Modeling and Simulation (M&S) has been growing at a rapid pace in the last few decades, particularly since the integration of growing computational capabilities, and the incorporation of more and more researchers coming from both computational as well as more traditional social, physical and biological sciences. At the same time, the ideas encapsulated in the growing paradigm of nonlinearity and Complexity have been gaining traction and have become increasingly accepted in the Literatures of all fields of study. In this sense, the rise of complexity science and of computer simulations have happened simultaneously because they have co-evolved and found inspiration from each other. This essay attempts to serve as a type of mirror in which both Complexity and Simulation can look at each other, understand each other, and compare notes. Nonetheless, the point of the article is that this is not yet a perfect mirror, and that the state-of-the-art theoretical Literature on complexity and computer simulations still do not yet see eye to eye. There are certainly lessons to be learned from the simulation side of the equation that have not been fully grasped and generalized. This work, however, focuses on the other side of the coin: On the theoretical insights that have not been appropriately modeled as of now, and about ways in which we can move the M&S field in that direction, with current and potential real-world applications of this increased rapport between theory and application.

References

  1. 1.
    Tolk, A.: Limitations and usefulness of computer simulations for complex adaptive systems research. In: Sokolowski, J., Durak, U., Mustafee, N., Tolk, A. (eds.) Summer of Simulation 50 Years of Seminal Computing Research. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, Switzerland (2019)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bar-Yam, Y.: A mathematical theory of strong emergence using multiscale variety. Complexity 9, 15–24 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.20029MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abbott, R.: Emergence explained: abstractions: getting epiphenomena to do real work. Complexity 12, 13–26 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.20146MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pessa, E.: What is emergence? In: Minati, G., Pessa, E. (eds.) Emergence in Complex, Cognitive, Social, and Biological Systems, pp. 379–382. Springer, Boston, MA (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crutchfield, J.: The calculi of emergence: computation, dynamics and induction. Physica D 75, 11–54 (1994).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(94)90273-9CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taylor, P., Jonker, L.: Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics. Math. Biosci. 40, 145–156 (1978).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-5564(78)90077-9MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldstein, S., Young, C.: Evolutionary stable strategy of handedness in major league baseball. J. Comp. Psychol. 110, 164–169 (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.110.2.164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lindgren, K.: Evolutionary dynamics in game-theoretic. In: The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II, p. 337 (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Axelrod, R.: More effective choice in the Prisoner’s dilemma. J. Conflict Resolut. 24, 379–403 (1980).  https://doi.org/10.1177/002200278002400301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gilboa, I., Samet, D.: Bounded versus unbounded rationality: the tyranny of the weak. Games Econ. Behav. 1, 213–221 (1989).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0899-8256(89)90009-2MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Allen, T., Starr, T.: Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1982)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aström, K., Murray, R.: What is feedback? In: Feedback Systems, an Introduction for Scientists and Engineers. Princeton University Press (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arthur, W.: Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ. J. 99, 116–131 (1989).  https://doi.org/10.2307/2234208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suarez, E., Castañón-Puga, M.: Distributed agency. Int. J. Agent Technol. Syst. 5, 32–52 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.4018/jats.2013010103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith, A.: The Wealth of Nations. Modern Library, New York (1776)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beinhocker, E.: Evolution, complexity, and the radical remaking of economics. In: The Origin of Wealth. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Darwin, C.: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life and the Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Modern Library (1872)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hatchuel, A.: Towards design theory and expandable rationality: the unfinished program of Herbert Simon. J. Manag. Gov. 5, 260–273 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maturana, H., Varela, F.: Autopoiesis and Cognition, the Realization of the Living. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Finance and Decision Sciences, School of BusinessTrinity UniversitySan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations