The Complexity of Complexity: Structural vs. Quantitative Approach (original) (raw)

The Essence of Complexity: Is it Subjective or Objective?

This paper examines the concept of complexity as defined by various scholars and finds that there is much disagreement about what complexity is or how to engineer a complex system. One concept discussed is the subjective view of complexity that complexity is anything one does not understand. It is concluded that subjective complexity is the most difficult type to engineer and create a meaningful system. Other definitions include more objective criteria, such as the structural properties and the uncertainty in the relationships between components. In the end it is concluded that the uncertainty definition is the most descriptive and the most amenable to engineering. Finally, the paper discusses the potential for complexity analysis in the formulation of foreign policy and the stability of national economies and private enterprises.

A Review of Complexity: A Guided Tour

Introduction For some years, complexity theory gains popularity in the realm of the social sciences, organization studies and management studies. However, complexity theory in the domain of public administration and policy analysis is still a minority interest.

A New Quantitative Definition of the Complexity of Organized Matters

Complexity

One of the most fundamental problems in science is to define the complexity of organized matters quantitatively, that is, organized complexity. Although many definitions have been proposed toward this aim in previous decades (e.g., logical depth, effective complexity, natural complexity, thermodynamics depth, effective measure complexity, and statistical complexity), there is no agreed-upon definition. The major issue of these definitions is that they captured only a single feature among the three key features of complexity, descriptive, computational, and distributional features, for example, the effective complexity captured only the descriptive feature, the logical depth captured only the computational, and the statistical complexity captured only the distributional. In addition, some definitions were not computable; some were not rigorously specified; and any of them treated either probabilistic or deterministic forms of objects, but not both in a unified manner. This paper pres...

Chapter 2.3. Measuring Complexity

A unified Theory of Complexity. Author: Ricardo Alvira. ISBN: 978-1499335859. 274 pages

"This text is chapter 2.3 of the book 'A unified Theory of Complexity'. It briefly explains the four complexity measures proposed in the theory, and reviews different currently existing Complexity conceptualizations and measures. From the revision, we draw conclusions that support the proposed theory which conceptualizes Complexity from four perspectives: Organization, Emergence, Meaning and Logic. The text does not try to be 'exhaustive' but to concisely explain the reviewed issues, support the proposed perspective and set the basis for the mathematical formulation of Complexity that is developed later in the text [Chapter 3]"

General complexity A philosophical and critical perspective

Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 2018

In this paper we argue that a rigorous understanding of the nature and implications of complexity reveals that the underlying assumptions that inform our understanding of complex phenomena are deeply related to general philosophical issues. We draw on a very specific philosophical interpretation of complexity, as informed by the work of Paul Cilliers and Edgar Morin. This interpretation of complexity, we argue, resonates with specific themes in post-structural philosophy in general, and deconstruction in particular. We argue that post-structural terms such as différance carry critical insights into furthering our understanding of complexity. The defining feature that distinguishes the account of complexity offered here to other contemporary theories of complexity is the notion of critique. The critical imperative that can be located in a philosophical interpretation of complexity exposes the limitations of totalising theories and subsequently calls for examining the normativity inherent in the knowledge claims that we make. The conjunction of complexity and post-structuralism inscribes a critical-emancipatory impetus into the complexity approach that is missing from other theories of complexity. We therefore argue for the importance of critical complexity against reductionist or restricted understandings of complexity.