اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدConcept and Definition of Complexity
63
0
0.0
(
0
)
تأليف
Russell K. Standish
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
The term {em complexity} is used informally both as a quality and as a quantity. As a quality, complexity has something to do with our ability to understand a system or object -- we understand simple systems, but not complex ones. On another level, {em complexity} is used as a quantity, when we talk about something being more complicated than another. In this chapter, we explore the formalisation of both meanings of complexity, which happened during the latter half of the twentieth century.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
In previous work, I have developed an information theoretic complexity measure of networks. When applied to several real world food webs, there is a distinct difference in complexity between the real food web, and randomised control networks obtained
by shuffling the network links. One hypothesis is that this complexity surplus represents information captured by the evolutionary process that generated the network. In this paper, I test this idea by applying the same complexity measure to several well-known artificial life models that exhibit ecological networks: Tierra, EcoLab and Webworld. Contrary to what was found in real networks, the artificial life generated foodwebs had little information difference between itself and randomly shuffle
Review article of various complexity measures of networks
The question What is Complexity? has occupied a great deal of time and paper over the last 20 or so years. There are a myriad different perspectives and definitions but still no consensus. In this paper I take a phenomenological approach, identifying
several factors that discriminate well between systems that would be consensually agreed to be simple versus others that would be consensually agreed to be complex - biological systems and human languages. I argue that a crucial component is that of structural building block hierarchies that, in the case of complex systems, correspond also to a functional hierarchy. I argue that complexity is an emergent property of this structural/functional hierarchy, induced by a property - fitness in the case of biological systems and meaning in the case of languages - that links the elements of this hierarchy across multiple scales. Additionally, I argue that non-complex systems are while complex systems do so that the latter, in distinction to physical systems, must be described not only in a space of states but also in a space of update rules (strategies) which we do not know how to specify. Further, the existence of structural/functional building block hierarchies allows for the functional specialisation of structural modules as amply observed in nature. Finally, we argue that there is at least one measuring apparatus capable of measuring complexity as characterised in the paper - the human brain itself.
We calculate a measure of statistical complexity from the global dynamics of electroencephalographic (EEG) signals from healthy subjects and epileptic patients, and are able to stablish a criterion to characterize the collective behavior in both grou
ps of individuals. It is found that the collective dynamics of EEG signals possess relative higher values of complexity for healthy subjects in comparison to that for epileptic patients. To interpret these results, we propose a model of a network of coupled chaotic maps where we calculate the complexity as a function of a parameter and relate this measure with the emergence of nontrivial collective behavior in the system. Our results show that the presence of nontrivial collective behavior is associated to high values of complexity; thus suggesting that similar dynamical collective process may take place in the human brain. Our findings also suggest that epilepsy is a degenerative illness related to the loss of complexity in the brain.
Proponents of Complexity Science believe that the huge variety of emergent phenomena observed throughout nature, are generated by relatively few microscopic mechanisms. Skeptics however point to the lack of concrete examples in which a single mechani
stic model manages to capture relevant macroscopic and microscopic properties for two or more distinct systems operating across radically different length and time scales. Here we show how a single complexity model built around cluster coalescence and fragmentation, can cross the fundamental divide between many-body quantum physics and social science. It simultaneously (i) explains a mysterious recent finding of Fratini et al. concerning quantum many-body effects in cuprate superconductors (i.e. scale of 10^{-9} - 10^{-4} meters and 10^{-12} - 10^{-6} seconds), (ii) explains the apparent universality of the casualty distributions in distinct human insurgencies and terrorism (i.e. scale of 10^3 - 10^6 meters and 10^4 - 10^8 seconds), (iii) shows consistency with various established empirical facts for financial markets, neurons and human gangs and (iv) makes microscopic sense for each application. Our findings also suggest that a potentially productive shift can be made in Complexity research toward the identification of equivalent many-body dynamics in both classical and quantum regimes.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
