Talk:Complex adaptive system

"Systems science portal" Icon Clipping Image Caption

There is a "System science portal" box hovering over the caption for the second, bar-graph image. This is really annoying; I have to copy/paste, or open up the source-code to read a caption. I can't see how to immediately fix this, but I think someone should address this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.132.171 (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Commercial link appropriate?

As it sits, the external link to the Redfish Group with no description looks like spam. Any comments or differing characterization of the link before it gets removed? --Blainster 23:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Interesting

The universe seems to be arranged in hierarchies. There are various levels at which you can understand it. The level we are most famililar with is the level of everyday life. Going down we run into the levels of organs, cells, molecular biology, chemistry. Each level has its own laws which work in certian "special cases" with all violations at the "extreams". Complex Adaptive Swarms exhibit similar layered behavior also, at each layer the swarm is made of smaller complex adaptive systems. This layered behavior doesn't appear in swarms made of simple systems. This all seems to imply that either there is no bottom to the layers of the universe(and no TOE) or, the bottom layer is made of smart, adaptive particles.--SurrealWarrior 18:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 12:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed name change [plural -> singular]

• JA: I had posted the reason for this change at the Requested moves page. I thought that this was pretty straightforward, but needed admin help because of the pre-existing undeveloped article with the singular title. This article was initially titled with the singular Complex adaptive system, then listed for speedy deletion due to lack of content or lack of work expanding the stub. Then it appears that a new article was created under the plural title. I think that it's standard to use singular forms for titles unless there is some overriding reason to use the plural, as this makes it easier to wiki both forms as needed, by Complex adaptive systems, and so on. There is now a complex tangle of redirects involving this article and several others on complexity that I encountered in the process of trying to reference it properly, and I can sort that out after the change is made. Jon Awbrey 02:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree, move: I don't have a problem with this move. It seems strange that the singular title was previously redirected to complex system instead of here. Since there was no substantive article or any discussion at the singular title, I can't see any need to try to preserve the history there. --Blainster 02:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notes & Queries

Jon Awbrey 05:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitions need fix

The Revision as of 13:50, 20 December 2006 Michael Hardy, (→Definitions - cquote) resulted in the deletion of the original text. But I can't figure out how to fix it. Help, anyone?Fireproeng 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done.Fireproeng 18:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

maybe an example or two would help?

i'm having trouble understanding these articles. i.e. complexity almost doesn't say anything specific. can we have an example of a complex adaptive system, what makes it complex, what makes it adaptive? Is a thermostat one? or is it not complex?

a quote from the article (a definition?)

What distinguishes a CAS from a pure multi-agent system (MAS) is the focus on top-level properties and features like self-similarity, complexity, emergence and self-organization. A MAS is simply defined as a system composed of multiple, interacting agents. In CASs, the agents as well as the system are adaptive: the system is self-similar. A CAS is a complex, self-similar collectivity of interacting adaptive agents. Complex Adaptive Systems are characterised by a high degree of adaptive capacity, giving them resilience in the face of perturbation.

Other important properties are adaptation

the article just keeps saying the same words over and over again: self-similarity, compexity, adaptive capacity... but it defines none of these. I have no clue what self-similarity is doing here, it usually refers to a subsystem being similar to the whole system, of course this is strictly speaking impossible for a finite system so i don't get it. i also don't see how that makes it adaptive. does it make a snowflake complex?

pick a few systems and define in what way they are self similar, define what it means for the system to be adaptive.

the section on biology only discusses a technical issue of the left hand wall in evolution of complexity. again, it doesn't describe what it means for a cell or a mouse to be a complex adaptive system (other than the obvious gut sense that of course that sounds like what they are. work your way down the scale from mouse to cell to ribosome to enzyme to amino acid to carbon atom to proton. at what point in this hierarchy is the system no longer a complex adaptive system?

I'd try writing it, but i've been trying for 20 years to no avail. the best i can come up with is a collection of 60 descriptions of interesting systems and let the reader decide on the categories if there are any. perhaps it is too early in history for such a treatment, these things are only 150 years old. I think it took longer than that to define what oxygen was.Wikiskimmer 08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Aye, an example might help. I'll muse on this for a while... also, might I suggest that the Literature and External Links be somehow worked to be in-line references with the text instead? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No random list of scientists in the external links section

I removed a list of scientists from the external links section, for the third time. Now it really looks like a random list of scientists, which shouldn't be in this section in the first place. Main articles like this in Wikipedia simply don't show a list of external links to scientists in the external links section. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How can you justify this article having a further 35 external links? That is a ridiculous amount. Wikipedia is not an internet links directory. EL policy states; "Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their accuracy." What information do these pages add to the subject of the article? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to toss my view into the fray as well, I agree with removing the external links as they existed in the previous versions. Wikipedia is not a repository of links nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information on all programs ever everywhere. One would not have links to every prominent biologist or biology department on the Biology page, so why then all the links on scientists, research programs, etc. here? Madcoverboy (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the external links section in this article did not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. There is no question about that. But these links in a way seems to be important. This article is the main article about the new field of "Complex adaptive system", which is a scientific paradigm developed by scientists, institutes, and in conferences and in magazines. Now I am not a real expert in this field. But it seemed to me that those 35 links gave a good representation of this scientific field. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue that it doesn't. However the article subject is Complex adaptive systems, not Everyone involved in the field of complex adaptive systems. As Madcoverboy notes above; all scientific fields are a collaborative effort, and their articles don't attempt to list everyone and every organisation involved in it. The only ones listed in the External Links should be those who have contributed significantly enough to merit a mention in the article itself.

Is there not any professional or organisational web sites that collate this information that could be linked to? Wikipedia shouldn't be attempting to be a directory. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I wish there was a simple solution here? I have noticed this problem existing in more articles about new fields. It would be better if in the article had a chapter about the organization of the field based on reliable sources. Until that time this listing is an acceptable alternative to me. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy of removed external links

• Complexity Digest comprehensive digest of latest CAS related news and research.
• Complex Adaptive Systems Research website by Mark Voss with many links.
• A description of complex adaptive systems on the Principia Cybernetica Web.
• Quick reference single-page description of the 'world' of complexity and related ideas hosted by the Center for the Study of Complex Systems at the University of Michigan.
• Analyx real-world applications of agent-based modeling drawing on Complexity science.
• Biology-inspired techniques for self-organization in dynamic networks.

University Programs

• Glamorgan Business School, Centre Complexity, MSc Complexity & Leadership
• Northwestern University Northwestern Institute on Complex Systems (NICO)
• University of Southampton Complexity Science MSc.
• Chalmers University International Msc program.
• Delft University of Technology Technology, Policy and Management department.
• London School of Economics Complexity Research Programme.
• UCLA Human Complex Systems Program
• University of Michigan Center for the Study of Complex Systems.
• Center for Complex Systems Research University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
• Iowa State University CAS Group.
• Center for Complex Adaptive Sociotechnological Systems Stevens Institute of Technology.

Organizations

• Northwestern University Complexity in Action Network (CANet)
• Complexity Society
• DNA Wales Complexity Network Research group in Complex Adaptive Systems and Critical Management
• Bandung Fe Institute Research Group on Social Complexity in Indonesia
• Dodccrp Command and Control Research Program.
• Institute Para Limes
• New England Complex Systems Institute
• Plexus Institute - An organization dedicated to bringing the benefits of complex adaptive systems to the world
• RedFish Group
• Simudyne
• Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology & Life Sciences
• Swarm Development Group - Complex Adaptive System modeling and simulation tool development
• ThinkVine LLC - Complexity science applied to marketing problems.
• Human Systems Dynamics Institute - Complexity science applied to the ways in which humans live, work, and play together in families, communities, and organizations

Journals

• Journal of Complexity
• Complexity International
• Journal of Social Complexity
• Emergence: Complexity and Organization, quarterly journal, ISSN: 1521-3250.

That list of Researchers and scientists

I have removed the following list of scientists from the article several times now:

• Ozalp Babaoglu University of Bologna
• Stephanie Forrest University of New Mexico
• Melanie Mitchell Portland State University
• Elizabeth McMillan Open University
• http://www.dnawales.co.uk/ Paul T Thomas, University of Glamorgan Business School, Wales, UK
• Gregory Todd Jones, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA USA
• Ahmed Elsayed Mohamed University of Mansoura Egypt.

An anomynous editor keep putting this list back. Now I wonder, why he wants this list here in the first place. Maybe he can explain first. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And about Thermodynamics?

See modern view of open systems and systems far from equilibrium: there are a "hard Science" behind Complex adaptive systems theory! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.111.77.219 (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Illustration

The illustration at the start of the Overview has no citation. Checking its origin it was produced by a wikipedia editor "inspired" by a couple of books. Aside from the fact that it is inaccurate it is clearly original research. If no citation is produced to support it I am removing it again. --Snowded ^TALK 19:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation about John Holland ist wrong

1) In the quoted book M. Mitchell Waldrop. (1994). Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. - I have to refer to the Simon & Schuster Paperback issue - M. Mitchell Waldrop wrote a protocol of a lecture of John Holland "THE ECONOMY AS AN EVOLVING COMPLEX SYSTEM". You can not cite that as an original text of John Holland.

2) Also Waldrop´s protocol is cited wrong, what we can see in the article is a summary of what Waldrop wrote and is not marked as a summary.

3) Even in the original paper of John Holland the article citation can not be found. Santa Fe Institute: "The economy as an evolving complex system - The proceedings of the evolutionary paths of the global economy workshop, held september, 1987 in Santa Fe, New Mexico", Editor: Anderson, Philip W. Addison-Wesley, 1988

--Torbrax (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

all definitions were cited wrong or do not lead to existing references

As said before the John Holland citation was just wrong and the links for the references of the other two citations did not work any more.--Torbrax (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Restored File:Complex-adaptive-system.jpg

Recently this file was removed with the argument "unsourced picture of dubious value" (see here) however:

• The source is clearly: Own work by Acadac
• The image is a concept map, which pictures the relationships between some of the main concepts.

You can always question the use of such concept maps in Wikipedia. But if there are around so long, there should be a discussion and some consensus first. -- Mdd (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The subscrip of the image has been questioned and trimmed before (again) by the User:Snowded, see here, with the argument

picture is one take only, not representative and I'm not sure its right anyway.

This argument can be questioned again. A search for "Complex adaptive system" in Google images ([1]) show multiple similar images. -- Mdd (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry its original research or synthesis. It is unsourced, the fact it is been allowed to hang around is no reason to retain it. Find a source before you restore it ----Snowded ^TALK 17:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)