Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Click here to configure this browser for off-campus access.
- Andreas Wagner (1999). Causality in Complex Systems. Biology and Philosophy 14 (1).Systems involving many interacting variables are at the heart of the natural and social sciences. Causal language is pervasive in the analysis of such systems, especially when insight into their behavior is translated into policy decisions. This is exemplified by economics, but to an increasing extent also by biology, due to the advent of sophisticated tools to identify the genetic basis of many diseases. It is argued here that a regularity notion of causality can only be meaningfully defined for systems with linear interactions among their variables. For the vastly more important class of nonlinear systems, no such notion is likely to exist. This thesis is developed with examples of dynamical systems taken mostly from mathematical biology. It is discussed with particular reference to the problem of causal inference in complex genetic systems, systems for which often only statistical characterizations exist.In my reading list | Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize |My bibliography
| Export citation | Scholar
Discussion of Andreas Wagner, Causality in complex systems
Nothing in this forum yet.
Similar books and articles
The principle of causality has traditionally been formulated in terms of the dynamic equations of classical physics. It has been believed that only stable (conservative) systems can be meaningfully studied in this way. The evolutionary systems studied by social scientists and biologists are non-conservative, and so are excluded from the traditional formulation of causality. The author argues that causal laws for non-conservative systems can be meaningfully formulated. An example based on Malthus'' population theory is given.
This paper explores the meaning and possibility of a theory of knowledge vis-a-vis the non linear complex systems. The thesis hereafter defended is that knowledge of complex systems has to do more with possibilities than with factual reality. Therefore, knowledge is characterized by incompletness, incomputability and randomness, and so computer acquires a relevant role in the study of complex systems. Towards the end, the place and the very complexity of human beings as a complex problem is considered.
Both natural and engineered systems are fundamentally dynamical in nature: their defining properties are causal, and their functional capacities are causally grounded. Among dynamical systems, an interesting and important sub-class are those that are autonomous, anticipative and adaptive (AAA). Living systems, intelligent systems, sophisticated robots and social systems belong to this class, and the use of these terms has recently spread rapidly through the scientific literature. Central to understanding these dynamical systems is their complicated organisation and their consequent capacities for (...)
No categories
Using the concept of adjunction, for the comprehension of the structure of a complex system, developed in Part I, we introduce the notion of covering systems consisting of partially or locally defined adequately understood objects. This notion incorporates the necessary and sufficient conditions for a sheaf theoretical representation of the informational content included in the structure of a complex system in terms of localization systems. Furthermore, it accommodates a formulation of an invariance property of information communication concerning the analysis of (...)
Using the concept of adjunctive correspondence, for the comprehension of the structure of a complex system, developed in Part I, we introduce the notion of covering systems consisting of partially or locally defined adequately understood objects. This notion incorporates the necessary and sufficient conditions for a sheaf theoretical representation of the informational content included in the structure of a complex system in terms of localization systems. Furthermore, it accommodates a formulation of an invariance property of information communication concerning the analysis (...)
All complex systems are complex, but some are more complex than others are. Biological systems are generally more complex than physical systems. How do biologists tackle complex systems? In this talk, we will consider two biological systems, the genome and the brain. Scientists know much about them, but much more remains unknown. Ignorance breeds philosophical speculation. Reductionism makes a strong showing here, as it does in other frontier sciences where large gaps remain in our understanding. I will show that reductionism (...)
In my reading list
| Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: creatingtechnology.org | Scholar | More..
| | Other links: creatingtechnology.org | Scholar | More.. Systems exhibiting relationships between mental states and material states, briefly mind-matter systems, offer epistemological and methodological problems exceeding those of systems with mental states or material states alone. Some of these problems can be addressed by proceeding from standard firstorder approaches to more sophisticated second-order approaches. These can illuminate questions of reference and validity, and their ramifications for the topic of reproducibility. For various situations in complex systems it is shown that second-order approaches need to be employed. Considering mind-matter systems (...)
No categories
The complex and dynamic nature of systems pose a particular challenge to researchers and require the use of a research methodology designed to deal with such systems. The properties of fit, relevance, understandability, generality, control, workability, generalizability, and modifiability make Glaserian grounded theory and grounded action particularly well suited for studying systems. These methods are innovative, systemic, and sophisticated enough to reveal the underlying complexities of systems and plan actions that address their complex, dynamic nature while remaining grounded in what (...)
In this chapter we want to provide philosophical tools for understanding and reasoning about complex systems. Classical thinking, which is taught at most schools and universities, has several problems for coping with complexity. We review classical thinking and its drawbacks when dealing with complexity, for then presenting ways of thinking which allow the better understanding of complex systems. Examples illustrate the ideas presented. This chapter does not deal with specific tools and techniques for managing complex systems, but we try to (...)
No categories
Laws of nature have been traditionally thought to express regularities in the systems which they describe, and, via their expression of regularities, to allow us to explain and predict the behavior of these systems. Using the driven simple pendulum as a paradigm, we identify three senses that regularity might have in connection with nonlinear dynamical systems: periodicity, uniqueness, and perturbative stability. Such systems are always regular only in the second of these senses, and that sense is not robust enough to (...)
In my reading list
| Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org | Scholar | More..
| | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org | Scholar | More.. 
