Facing Complexity: Prediction vs. Adaptation

Part of the Understanding Complex Systems book series (UCS)

Abstract

One of the presuppositions of science since the times of Galileo, Newton, Laplace, and Descartes has been the predictability of the world. This idea has strongly influenced scientific and technological models. However, in recent decades, chaos and complexity have shown that not every phenomenon is predictable, even if it is deterministic. If a problem space is predictable, in theory we can find a solution via optimization. Nevertheless, if a problem space is not predictable, or it changes too fast, very probably optimization will offer obsolete solutions. This occurs often when the immediate solution affects the problem itself. An alternative is found in adaptation. An adaptive system will be able to find by itself new solutions for unforeseen situations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bar-Yam, Y.: Dynamics of Complex Systems. Addison-Wesley, http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/ (accessed May 10, 2012)
  2. Berlekamp, E.R., Conway, J.H., Guy, R.K.: What Is Life. In: Berlekamp, E.R., Conway, J.H., Guy, R.K. (eds.) Winning Ways for Your Mathematical Plays, vol. 2: Games in Particular, pp. 817–850. Academic Press, London (1982)Google Scholar
  3. Cools, S.B., Gershenson, C., D’Hooghe, B.: Self-organizing traffic lights: A realistic simulation. In: Prokopenko, M. (ed.) Self-Organization: Applied Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 41–49. Springer, London (2007)Google Scholar
  4. Elert, G.: The Chaos Hypertextbook (1995), http://hypertextbook.com/chaos (accessed May 10, 2012)
  5. Gershenson, C.: Modelling Emotions with Multidimensional Logic. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society (NAFIPS 1999), New York City, NY, pp. 42–46 (1999), http://cogprints.org/1479/
  6. Gershenson, C.: Introduction to Chaos in Deterministic Systems. Formal Computational Skills. Teaching Package, COGS, University of Sussex (2002a), http://arxiv.org/abs/nlin.CD/0308023 (accessed May 10, 2012)
  7. Gershenson, C.: Contextuality: A Philosophical Paradigm, with Applications to Philosophy of Cognitive XE ”cognition” Science. Philosophy of Cognitive XE ”cognition” Science Essay, COGS, University of Sussex. (2002b), http://cogprints.org/2621/ (accessed May 10, 2012)
  8. Gershenson, C.: Self-Organizing Traffic Lights. Complex Systems 16(1), 29–53 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. Gershenson, C.: Design and Control of Self-organizing Systems. CopIt ArXives, Mexico. TS0002EN (2007)Google Scholar
  10. Gershenson, C.: The Implications of Interactions for Science and Philosophy. C3 Report (April 2011a), http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.2827 (accessed May 10, 2012)
  11. Gershenson, C.: Self-Organization Leads to Supraoptimal Performance in Public Transportation Systems. PLoS ONE 6(6), e21469 (2001b), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021469Google Scholar
  12. Gershenson, C., Heylighen, F.: When can we call a system Self-organizing? In: Banzhaf, W.T., Christaller, P., Dittrich, P., Kim, J.T., Ziegler, J. (eds.) 7th European Conference on Advances in Artificial Life, ECAL 2003, pp. 606–614. Springer, Dortmund (2003)Google Scholar
  13. Gershenson, C., Heylighen, F.: How can we think the complex? In: Richardson, K. (ed.) Managing Organizational Complexity: Philosophy, Theory and Application, vol. 3, pp. 47–62. Information Age Publishing (2005)Google Scholar
  14. Gershenson, C., Rosenblueth, D.A.: Self-organizing traffic lights at multiple-street intersections. Complexity 17(4), 23–39 (2012), http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2829 (accessed May 10, 2012) Google Scholar
  15. Gödel, K.: Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme, I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38, 173-198. Google Scholar
  16. Holland, J. H.: Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Helix books, Reading (1995) Google Scholar
  17. Kauffman, S.A.: Reinventing the sacred: A new view of science, reason, and religion. Basic Books, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  18. Morin, E.: Restricted complexity, general complexity. In: Gershenson, C., Aerts, D., Edmonds, B. (eds.) Worldviews, Science and Us: Philosophy and Complexity, pp. 5–29. World Scientific, Singapore (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Priest, G., Tanaka, K.: Paraconsistent Logic. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1996), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/ (accessed May 10, 2012)
  20. Tarski, A.: The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4(3), 341–376 (1944)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wilensky, U.: NetLogo (1999), http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo
  22. Wolfram, S.: Theory and application of cellular automata. World Scientific, Singapore (1986)Google Scholar
  23. Wolfram, S.: A New Kind of Science. Wolfram Media, Champaign (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Wuensche, A., Lesser, M.J.: The global dynamics cellular automata: An atlas of basin of attraction fields of one-dimensional cellular automata. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1992)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science Department, Instituto de Investigaciones en Matemáticas Aplicadas y en SistemasUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMexicoMéxico

Personalised recommendations