In the course of my duties as a biological modeler (whatever that may mean to you, my dear reader; were you to exist, of course) I am sporadically called upon to wax explanatory on the relation between generators (abbreviated and unitized as “gene” in some domains) and phenomena. The path from generators to phenomena is called the “forward map” and, perhaps obviously, the path from the phenomena back to its causes, the generators, is called the “inverse map”. It is largely the subject of plectics ¹ (a.k.a. complexity theory) to discover, use, and make repeatable, methods for accurately following these two paths. A primary premise of the computationalist approach to plectics is that the forward map is not so straightforward. I.e. beyond a certain degree of simplicity, it is not clear what phenomena will emerge from the generators. And this premise is emphasized because it is so often forgotten. It is the reason Chaos theory, fractals, and games like chess are so maddeningly interesting.
Similarly, the cyberneticists have an emphatic premise: that complexity comes about through feedback loops. Again, beyond a certain degree of simplicity, it is not clear which part of a system is the cause and which is the effect. Phenomena are exacerbated with positive feedback and dampened with negative feedback.
Both emphases are appropriate and the fact that we even have a distinction between computationalists and cyberneticists is an example of specialization gone mad. ² Both require the notion of loopiness and the somewhat occult nature of both the forward and inverse maps. But the loopiness is often a more difficult concept to grasp.
This article challenges the notion that a complex forward map is sufficient to realize or explain a complex system, especially one so full of occult paths and loopiness (including trans-hierarchy) as multi-cellular life. And I am very happy that such an article has made it into the mainstream news.
1. Murray Gell-Mann tried to install “plectics” in the vernacular, but failed. I buy Murray’s argument and try to use “plectics” whenever I can.
2. Not that I would advocate for huge box stores like Wal*Mart where you can buy diapers, car batteries, and bread all in the same trip or anything. In fact, such lack of specialty disgusts me. But there is something to say for, e.g., the general practitioner or renaissance man (sorry, I just can’t replace “man” with “person” in that phrase) who can think holistically … synergistically … about a subject without her (that should make up for the gender bias) prejudices kicking in to keep her from escaping her current thought rut.
