Philosophia Polymathematica

I don’t think it’s debatable that while most people can accurately identify complexity, they can’t necessarily accurately describe either the phenomenon or the conditions of complexity. In the real world complexity can, of course, manifest in an infinite number of things. As such, there exist in the real world infinite varieties of complexities, the specific elucidation of which requires intimate knowledge of the thing with respect to which the specific sort and stripe of complexity at-hand is an emergent property. For purposes of this blog, we will examine the objective conception of complexity in a most general manner. As it is, a thorough understanding of complexity in general is a prerequisite for understanding a particular or specific form of complexity. My personal definition of complexity is that it is the entropy that accompanies an increasing degree of elaboration. The condition of numerous parts, pieces, elements, variables etc. constituting something is a sine qua non for

Questions such as what is complexity and what contributes to the complexity of something are of interest to philosophers in general and to epistemologists in particular. I came across a fascinating array of answers to questions about the nature and function of complexity at a recent meeting of my philosophy discussion group. The subject was approached from several different angles and many of the propositions shared during the collaborative inquiry can be reconciled and synthesized. Also shared were a number of fascinating propositions that despite being germane and, to a lesser or greater degree, meritorious cannot be reconciled with those that were the most relevant to the topic because they were based on sufficiently different premises. Specifically, the irreconcilable propositions concerned themselves primarily with either the relativity, or the subjective perceptions, of complexity.   Again, though I’m not particularly amendable to this position for reasons I will touch upon lat