complex systems

There's a difference between science and complexity. Its a gap that hasn't been easily closed. Science has observed its first major gains in places such as botany, astronomy, physics, chemistry. These are places where the bulk of study is observation, analysis, experimentation, and so forth. It is relatively easy to observe, describe, and calculate the interactions of a relatively linear system with few objects or forces involved.

It has become a frustrated method as its studies have progressed and the systems have grown larger and more complex. This began with atomic studies and the ideas of quantum mechanics. As time bears on, fluid dynamics, genetics, and the weather still escape our scientific inquisition at times. We can observe wind or water, but it is often difficult to predict exactly how it will interact with any reliability. This is because there are a great many interactions involved. Each has a minor and seemingly irrelevant part to play. Each ends up in unpredictability. The weather and the stock market are two places we try to invent algorithms to predict and give us a measured stability. We fail. It isn't because science is necessarily bad. It is because it doesn't understand living systems very well. One of the hallmarks of science is to break down a reaction and see how each part plays into the final result. But a living system doesn't have necessarily a consistent result. One can mix two chemicals at such and such pressure/volume/temperature, and the same result will evolve of this circumstance every time. This doesn't happen. The same two events in a living system can evolve into vastly different scenarios. Because minute variations become harmonies along the numerous interplays involved. If we're trying to break down such a system, we are ignoring two aspects.

First, the system often depends on its interplay for any results. It almost has to be studied as a whole unit, not as a series of interactions that are scarcely related. They are related because they amplify or dampen each other along the way. We can't study this way with science. It can observe and document, but it's only barely coming to grips with the complexity involved. We've been trying to predict the weather for at least 70 years with advanced technology like radar. We're still wrong much of the time.

Second, if we begin breaking down such a complex situation, we're altering the conditions. We have no control over the variables in the experiment. Remember even minute variations cause disturbed harmonies. Heisenberg Uncertainty says much about this problem. If we try to measure an atomic particle's speed, well we're changing its position or energy, and if we're measuring its position, then its speed changes. A sociologist or psychologist observing subjects will witness altering behavior patterns to fit something approximating societal norms. People act differently when they know they're being watched. These are complex situations. We can't study them by being detached observers, because the situation doesn't allow us to sit back and play non-interference.

So now what? Science is useless? No, its pretty important still. It just doesn't have the answers we want yet. Because it is difficult work ahead. Put it back into its comfortable zone of linear equations and we would be done by now. We're not so lucky.