Re: Complexity, Languaging & Design LO926

JOHN N. WARFIELD (jwarfiel@osf1.gmu.edu)
Tue, 25 Apr 1995 07:19:13 -0400 (EDT)

Replying to LO893 --

Doug thinks my definition of complexity was a little too complex. He
offers an amendment that requires high connectivity, as illustrated by an
underlying graphic form. It reminds me of the often cited quote:
"Everything is connected to everything else."

Perspective on connectivity is not terribly easy to obtain. Here are
some things that help me with the matter:

(1) George Friedman looked at a little book that contained all of the
equations of physics, over a thousand of them. If you think of each one
as having an underlying graphic of the type Doug mentions, the most
elements in any one of those equations was 7, and the average was 4.

(2) In the 20 years of using Interpretive Structural Modeling to
construct digraphs of relationships via a group process, we typically
encounter structures having around 30 elements, with perhaps 300
relationships. Generally speaking, the number of relationships compared
to the number of non-relationships is on the order of 50%.

I doubt if the foregoing means a whole lot to you because it is a
superficial portrait, but it does reflect the possibility that complex
situations can actually be patterned (especially with computer help) and
that the number of relationships is not quite as high as one might expect
if governed by the standard quote.

JOHN WARFIELD
Jwarfiel@osf1.gmu.edu