Group items tagged

This site is designed for people interested in complex systems and complex dynamical processes. Complexity Explorables hosts different collections of interactive illustrations of models for complex systems in physics, mathematics, biology, chemistry, social sciences, neuroscience, epidemiology, network science and ecology. Topics include pattern formation, synchronization, critical phenomena, chaotic dynamics, evolutionary dynamics, fractals, collective behavior, reaction-diffusion systems and more.

Time in complex systems operates concurrently at different scales, runs at multiple rates, and integrates the function of numerous connected systems. We describe these processes as "complex time" as opposed to the simple, regular clock time of physical phenomena. In complex time age includes explicitly the coupling between information gain and information loss.

The Complexity Explorer site provides online courses and other educational materials related to complex systems science. The Complexity Explorer project is being developed by the Santa Fe Institute and is funded by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation and by user donations.

OK, this post is already way too long, but one final thing. Physicists, I think, become even more drawn to economics when we look into economics and see broad resistance to research pursuing this "complexity" perspective. It seems instead that most of mainstream research tries to get around system complexity with mathematical tricks, rather than facing up to it. I'm thinking about ideas like representative agents, or rational expectations. The assumptions make it possible to build models without having to deal with the complexity of interactions and the emergent structures they create; but the resulting models, naturally, look very pale and questionable as models of anything real. When physicists see that a small minority of ("heterodox") economists also find the standard approach hugely limiting, they feel an urge to help out. And they believe that some of their ideas can help.

T he Complexity Challenge is an Economist Intelligence Unit report that investigates the rise of complexity in business and the challenges that increasing complexity creates. The report was commissioned by RBS. The Economist Intelligence Unit bears sole responsibility for the content of this report. Our editorial team executed the online survey, conducted the interviews and wrote the report. 

It's easy to confuse the merely complicated with the genuinely complex. Managers need to know the difference: If you manage a complex organization as if it were just a complicated one, you'll make serious, expensive mistakes.

Understanding the difference between complex and complicated systems is becoming important for many aspects of management and policy. With complicated problems or issues one can define the problem and strategically develop actions, time-frames and milestones along a path to success. In contrast, cause and effect are difficult to predict in complex adaptive systems. This post aims to provide more detail around these concepts as an introduction. - See more at: http://learningforsustainability.net/sparksforchange/complicated-or-complex-knowing-the-difference-is-important-for-the-management-of-adaptive-systems/#sthash.Kb2vkjsl.dpuf

Great list of courses, books and videos on complexity science, take a look http://bit.ly/2B69HFJ

About the Course: We have re-opened our popular introductory course indefinitely; all units will be open once the course is launched. You will be able to complete this course at any time of the year and receive a certificate. There will be a course instructor offering office hours and monitoring the forums to support your complexity learning journey. 

A potential danger in a systems approach is that there is a risk of overjargonizing and getting lost in complex terminology, maps and paralysis by analysis. One of the key themes that emerged from the discussion is that many people are starting to experiment with systems thinking but that it can be daunting or confusing to explain, operationalize or find common agreement. Does system thinking imply a rigorous and dynamic mapping of key actors, power relationships and other factors in a community (Yes)? But then how does systems thinking differ from a solid context analysis (still needs more explanation)? A potential danger in a systems approach is that there is a risk of overjargonizing and getting lost in complex terminology, maps and paralysis by analysis. One of the key themes that emerged from the discussion is that many people are starting to experiment with systems thinking but that it can be daunting or confusing to explain, operationalize or find common agreement. Does system thinking imply a rigorous and dynamic mapping of key actors, power relationships and other factors in a community (Yes)? But then how does systems thinking differ from a solid context analysis (still needs more explanation)? 

When we're dealing with different interacting levels of a system, seemingly minor details can rise to the top and become important to the system as a whole. We need "Field biologists" to catalog and study detarticails and portions of our complex systems, including their failures and bugs. This kind of biological thinking not only leads to new insights, but might also be the primary way forward in a world of increasingly interconnected and incomprehensible technologies.

Systems Innovation is an online platform for systems thinking and systems innovation - our mission is to make complexity and systems thinking accessible to all through education and enable systems level change through collaboration.

We are living in the midst of humankind's manifold crises, in a time of unprecedented change. Some call this era The Big Shift, Jump Time or The Great Transition. Out of the turbulence of this transformation, the world that will emerge will most likely be very different from what we know. Whether what unfolds will be for better or worse is up to us. Not up to us individually, but up to all of us who care for it.

The Santa Fe Institute is a nonprofit, independent research center that leads global research in complexity science. SFI scientists seek the shared patterns and regularities across physical, biological, social, and technological systems that give rise to complexity-in any system in which its collective, system-wide behaviors cannot be understood merely by studying its parts or individuals in isolation. Insights from complexity science are increasingly useful in understanding questions far beyond the boundaries of traditional academic disciplines-urban sustainability, disease networks, and financial risk, to name a few.

The Schumacher Institute is a think tank. We believe that our planet faces complex social, economic and environmental crises that are hard to solve, however, we are optimistic that solutions can be found. We apply systems thinking to explore and test sustainable options, which acknowledge the complexity of our world. We see social justice as integral to sustainability and look for answers that are fair to all, within the limits the Earth can sustain.

Strategy-Nets is a spin-out from the Purdue Center for Regional Development. The principals of Strategy-Nets understand the dynamics of developing and implementing complex strategies in open networks. The primary challenge of civic leadership today is to create and sustain adaptive regional economies. By definition, an adaptive economy has the built-in ability to renew itself by continuously developing new strategies to thrive.

Like ecosystems, financial markets are complex evolving systems from which unexpected bubbles, crashes, and other surprising behaviors can emerge. Building resilient financial systems may require policymakers to take cues from biology.

Democracy made Athens a dynamic, creative force 2500 years ago. Even then, however, democracy was fragile, sometimes stupid, and short-lived. Plato held it in low esteem and Aristotle likened it to "mob rule." Why, then, do we want to create 21st Century Agoras. What we want to create are communities energized by vibrant participative democracy. In our Information Age as old hierarchies prove dysfunctional, it is imperative that human communities have flexible ways to tap their wisdom and power. We do not believe that unstructured discussion on the Athenian model is adequate for dealing with the complexities of the Information Age. It was not adequate even for the simpler (by an order of magnitude as determined by a metric called Situational Complexity Index) situations of that bygone age. The Information Age challenges us to make participative democracy a liberating force in the world today. Research and proven methodology, aided by networked computing, has resolved at least one basic dilemma of democracy:   How can we hear perspectives of all the stakeholders, make collective sense of them, and reach decisions and act on pressing issues? The approach that overcomes this dilemma and multiple other hindrances to dialogic democracy is called the Structured Dialogic Design (SDD). The Agoras Institute convenes these dialogues as Co-Laboratories of Democracy. This process is a fusion of the theory of Generic Design Science and the consultative practice of Interactive Management, both developed over the last 30 years by Dr. John Warfield and our founder, Aleco Christakis.

The rise of the state is a key marker in the evolution of human society. States typically emerged when one chiefdom (amid a competing set of chiefdoms) achieved a greater and more effective level of organization.
Despite the presence of similar conditions, some states rose and flourished while some advanced chiefdoms never passed the threshold into statehood. Why states emerged in some places and not others, why they arose independently in six places around the world starting about 5,000 years ago, and why their rise was usually associated with the growth of cities, are fascinating questions for anthropologists. Answers to these questions could offer insights into today's urban systems.

Systems thinking, according to HU, has two important dimensions. One is the establishment of a new paradigm that understands global issues as inherently complex, multi-dimensional, conflictive and open to outside influence and intervention. A problem like slavery, for example, may seem intractable because of the economic interests it serves; in fact, the institutional and organizational linkages-the supply chains-that comprise slavery's power structure are vulnerable. The first step in system thinking is to map those linkages to better understand how they fit together and pinpoint their likely weak points. The next step is to devise a strategy that combines public advocacy, coalition building, insider lobbying, and investigative journalism to target those linkages, forcing those implicated in slavery, wittingly or unwittingly, to reform, and weakening the larger circuit of power over time.