Some philosophers would say that everything is Physics, and that Physics differs in structural organisation (e.g. small, big) and dynamics (e.g. living, not living).

Some philosophers would say that everything is Physics, and that Physics differs in structural organisation (e.g. small, big) and dynamics (e.g. living, not living).

Well, the TOE is dream has already been dreamt. Even though in the past there were serious attempts to reach such a theory, more recently nearly no one speaks any more about it. On the one hand.

On the other hand, the TOE is a physicalist assumption. It does not necessarily interpellate biologists, or mathematicians, nor to mention social scientists. That is, indeed reductionist, as it happens.

Now, smack to the point: no. A big now. I do not trust reductionist theories.

That said, I love quoting a Spanish theoretician (Weigenberg) who says: "Every time I get on a plane I put myself in the hands of reductionism". For, if one single bolt does not work…. kaputt!

Hi Carlos, thanks so much, very nice quote! I believe that, in that sense, every day, every hour, every single second we put ourselves in the hands of reductionism!

Reductionism vs systemic:

The modern Science originated from Galileo, Newton,etc believed as a mechanistic, atomistic or reductionist view of world. In physiology, medicine, cell biology, particle physics and many other branches, this view considered as the truth.

on the other hand systemic viewpoint and general system theory popularized by Bertalanffy recalls especial "features" of systems that can not be retrieved from the constructing elements of system as the main reason for this insight.

In my opinion TOE should not be necessarily originated from the reductionism approach. a good example is "Entanglement" in quantum physics where the couple of particles in spite of the very long distance between them acts as a system i.e. any measurement information about one particle involves some especial information about other particle. Hence the system view can not be distincted from any TOE.

This is an excellent topic and I’m looking mainly at your question about a unified description of nature. You actually started giving a great overview of Systems Thinking. You seem to have a way of thinking that lends itself to a holistic approach to problem solving which is very different from the reductionist approach. The reason I say this is because, in part, you seem to be talking about the difference between analysis and synthesis. While both are important, synthesis will help solve more complex problems. One of the major authors in Systems Thinking, Russell Ackoff used to say that an analysis of a problem might give you some information, but it won’t answer questions about “why.”

As an example, analysis will help understand individual components what they do, and their part in a whole (or system), but using synthesis will help understand what a component is part of in terms of how it relates to every other component. It helps us see the pattern of behavior which lead to a given problem; not in isolation, but how component parts interact in the real world. This interaction is what causes behavior patterns. How we approach problem solving it is important to understand as much as we can about what causes it.

While it is the situation that gets our attention there is actually an underlying pattern of behavior leading up to the current state of things which captured our attention. Beneath that evolving pattern of behavior there is a structure, or network of interactions, which is responsible for the patterns of behavior. And, that structure is a result of the mental models of the stakeholders involved in creating those structures. For us to develop more meaningful approaches to dealing with situations we need to understand the situation and all that is actually responsible for that situation.

Your question indicates to me that you already have a systemic perspective. Gene Bellinger defined a systemic perspective as an “iterative unfolding of understanding intended to provide the basis for developing a strategy which, when implemented, is highly likely to address the situation of interest as intended while minimizing the likelihood of unintended consequences” (Bellinger, 2011). In other words you seem to understand that reductionist approaches are not sufficient. As Gene Bellinger, the director of Systems Thinking World says, with a systemic perspective you can develop appropriate system approaches so that at the end of an evaluation or investigation, you have confidence that your understanding is a viable systemic perspective of the situation.

Whether there can be a unified description of nature depends on what you mean by that since reality is not a simple concept and we all look at things in different ways. While Systems Thinking can help to simplify this it is the process of developing a systemic perspective that will help in making even more sense of this. While a systems approach indicates the creation of or recognition of a system, it can also be limiting. Our systemic perspective helps us to look at any given situation and determine what is relevant.

I hope I was not too tangential; it's just that everything seems to be connected. I agree with what you wrote and I understand that these concepts are not easy to grasp. I recommend going to the website below as a start.

Reference

Bellinger, G. (2011). Systemic Perspective Vol I Foundations (Kindle Locations 213-215). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.

http://www.systemswiki.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

Dear Manouchehr, even though I get the sprite of what you mean (and I agree with it), please let me refer to the the letter.

I do not thing the dilemma stands between reductionism and systemic - approach. There is a third one, namely: the complex take. Thus, we would have, indeed: the reductionism, the systemic and the complex approach.

Dear Carlos, thanks for your comment. Concern with complex approach, I've not found a concise reference, Please let me know more about it and related references.

Dear all, perhaps for us as complex system thinkers, a dialogical approach is necessary, typical for example of Edgar Morin's thought, where “dialogical” means the union of two antagonistic terms in order to understand a complex problem. This is only a recent achievement of system theory (see, e.g. order and disorder, and the resilience notion stemming out of this). In this sense, reductionism and a systemic perspective are both necessary within a complex system approach. In other words, reductionist and sistemic approaches should work together, so we still need to be analytical but being aware, meanwhile, of not loosing the perspective of the whole system that is the only guidance we can rely on to interpret analytical results properly.

"I think from what we've learned, both from string theory, from the quantum mechanics of gravity, and so forth, that modern theories really do spell the end of reductionism".

(starting at c. 1:40 minutes in- http://youtu.be/NZ-ElsvYKyo).

As for a systems perspective, the best criticisms of reductionism are found within systems biology and in particular those who follow Rosen. For example:

"A simple representation of components to a system is the input/output block diagram. In this representation, each block represents an agent that effects a change on something, namely its input. The result of this interaction is some output. The abstract way of representing this is f: A->B where f is the process that takes input A into output B. Clearly B can now become the input for some other process so that we can visualize a system as a network of these interactions. The relational system represents a very special kind of transition this way. Rather than break everything down in the usual reductionist manner, these transitions are selected for an important distinguishing property, namely their expression of process rather than material things directly. This is best explained with an example. The system Rosen uses for an example is the Metabolism-Repair or [M,R] system. The process, f, in this case stands for the entire metabolism going on in an organism. This is, indeed, quite an abstraction. Clearly, the use of such a representation is meant to suppress the myriad of detail that would only serve to distract us from the more simple argument put this way. It does more because it allows processes we know are going on to be divorced from the requirement that they be fragmentable or reducible to material parts alone...

The transition, f, which is being called metabolism, is a mapping taking some set of metabolites, A, into some set of products, B. What are the members of A? Really everything in the organism has to be included in A, and there has to be an implicit agreement that at least some of the members of A can enter the organism from its environment. What are the members of B? Many, if not all, of the members of A since the transitions in the reduced system are all strung together in the many intricate patterns or networks that make up the organism’s metabolism. It also must be true that some members of B leave the organism as products of metabolism. The usefulness of this abstract representation becomes clearer if the causal nature of the events is made clear...

the mapping, f...is a functional component of the system we are developing. A functional component has many interesting attributes. First of all, it exists independent of the material parts that make it possible. This idea has been so frequently misunderstood that it requires a careful discussion. Reductionism has taught us that every thing in a real system can be expressed as a collection of material parts. This is not so in the case of functional components. We only know about them because they do something. Looking at the parts involved does not lead us to knowing about them if they are not doing that something. Furthermore, they only exist in a given context. “Metabolism” as discussed here has no meaning in a machine. It also would have no meaning if we had all the chemical components of the organism in jars on a lab bench. Now we have a way of dealing with context dependence in a system theoretical manner. Not only are they only defined in their context, they also are constantly contributing to that context. This is as self- referential a situation as there is. What it means is that if the context, the particular system, is destroyed or even severely altered, the context defining the functional component will no longer exist and the functional component will also disappear...

The semantic parallel with language is in the concept of functional component. Pull things apart as reductionism asks us to do and something essential about the system is lost. Philosophically this has revolutionary consequences. The acceptance of this idea means that one recognizes ontological status for something other than mere atoms and molecules. It says that material reality is only a part of that real world we are so anxious to understand. In addition to material reality there are functional components that are also essential to our understanding of any complex reality.

Mikulecky, D. C. (2005). The Circle That Never Ends: Can Complexity be Made Simple?. In Complexity in Chemistry, Biology, and Ecology (pp. 97-153). Springer

Basically, reductionism has been challenged by the ultimate reductionist science (physics) as well as the inability for its programme to succeed in so many domains we nonetheless (typically) hold accord with reductionism ontologically despite our epistemic limits. Circular causality isn't just limited to closed-timelike curves (CTCs) or other theoretical dilemmas posed by modern physics but are also elucidated in e.g., Alwyn Scott's work in mathematical biology. And of course causality itself is challenged by the nonlocality also inherent in (most understandings of) modern physics. As reductionism relies on causes being the product of the summation of the dynamics of the parts of any system (the parts themselves likewise reducible to the "simplest" parts which make them up), challenges to views of causality which rely on "linear" summations of the dynamics of parts to produce the dynamics of the whole are challenges to reductionism. So is the challenge that as one analyzes some system at increasingly more detailed, smaller levels one does not find "simpler" parts. Reductionism is then a seriously successful approach but is perhaps inadequate as a foundational principle for the entire scientific endeavor.

Following Andrew's contribution, it is clear that reductionism cannot recognize novel emerging properties. I shall clarify my thought on the dialogy between reductionist and sistemic approaches - where “dialogical” means the union of two antagonistic terms in order to understand a complex problem - with a simple example.Think of water (H2O), for example, that is the most abundant compound on Earth's surface, covering 70 percent of the planet. Water is made up of hydrogen ions (H+) linked to hydroxyl ions (OH-) to form H2O. In nature, water exists in liquid, solid, and gaseous states. It is in dynamic equilibrium between the liquid and gas states at standard temperature and pressure. Water is Cohesive and Adhesive. Water Maintains a Relatively Constant Temperature. Water Is a Good Solvent. Water Expands When It Freezes. Water Has a Neutral pH. By a simple reductionist approach we could never infer water properties from the properties of each individual atomic element (gases). Thus, water has unique and irreducible properties that are emerging when component objects are joined together in constraining relations to "construct" a higher-level aggregate object (H2O), novel properties that unpredictably come from a combination of two simpler constituents. However, we still need to know that water is made up of hydrogen ions (H+) linked to hydroxyl ions (OH-) to form H2O, and this because, for example, water [H2O] can dissociate into hydrogen [H+] and hydroxyl [OH-] ions, and pH is a relative measure of hydrogen to hydroxyl ions. In this sense, reductionism and a systemic perspective are both necessary within the complex system approach. In other words, reductionist and sistemic approaches should work together informing one another reciprocally to feed the knowledge on complex systems.

I agree with almost all responses particularly those which hold that reductionism is incapable of dealing with emergent properties. In reductionism there is always uncertainty and a whole is always more than its parts (elements). Given present level of our standing and ephasis on coninuity, linearneness and symetry, prhaps in near future we will not be able to deliver a TOE, it requires a new paradigm to think.

Dear Manouchehr, three very good books in this respect are:

Y. Bar-Yam, "Dynamic of Complex Systems"

Also by Bar-Yam, "Making Things Work".

And a fundamental one: Hooker, Gabbay, Thagard, Woods (Eds.), "Philosophy of Complex Systems".

I love the last one!

Dear Manouchehr, I would suggest some publications on complex adaptive systems that provide to me the most up-to-date ways of thinking about complexity:

Levin S., 1998. Ecosystems and the Biosphere as Complex Adaptive Systems. Ecosystems 1, 431–436.

Westley F., Zimmerman B., Patton M., 2006. Getting to maybe. Random House of Canada, Toronto.

Walker B.H., Salt D., 2006. Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Gunderson L.H., Holling C.S. (eds), 2002. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Carpenter S.R., Walker B.H., Anderies J.M., Abel N., 2001. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems. 4,765–781.

Meadows, D., 2009. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. Solutions 1(1), 41-49.

Scheffer M., Bascompte J., Brock W.A., Brovkin V., Carpenter S.R., Dakos V., Held H., van Nes E.H., Rietkerk M., Sugihara G., 2009. Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature 461, 53–59.

Dear Giovanni and Carlos

Thanks for great references, However i think there is a little bit misunderstanding related to this context. These references generally condider "complex systems", While complex systems attributed generally to chaotic or nonlinear  part of science (specificly a branch of advanced physics) and studied by "Physics of complex systems" , therefore in this background this issue has not been considered as a philosophical entity like the "Reductionism" or "systemic view". there is a big difference between "complex sysyems" and "systemic view" so as an intermediate view between these two perspectives we could not apply complex systems alone. However acceptation of these two attitudes together to describe world existence, could be taken  into account for ongoing research in any part of science. 

Gros, C. (2011). Complex and adaptive dynamical systems: A primer (2nd Ed.). (Springer Complexity). Springer.   Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life (Princeton Studies in Complexity). Princeton university press.   Niazi, M. A., & Hussain, A. (2012). Cognitive Agent-based Computing-I: A Unified Framework for Modeling Complex Adaptive Systems Using Agent-based & Complex Network-based Methods (SpringerBriefs in Cognitive Computation). Springer. Yang, A., & Shan, Y. (2008). Intelligent complex adaptive systems. IGI.   Also note that MIT Press has published a series of volumes under the title Complex Adaptive Systems: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/series/complex-adaptive-systems      

If I could add to the kindly provided list of references to complex adaptive systems approaches/methods to complexity, I'd suggest the following be considered:

Dear Manouchehr, a big no and a big yes to your comment.

A big no in that it is not true that complex systems are (sheer) physics. If you go to the literature mentioned my Giovanni, or even by Andrew, f.i., you will see that your claim is highly limited. I kindly suggest you to browse some of the literature - wide and rich about complexity.

In order to help you a bit more, please take a look at the following site (among many others):

http://www.nessnet.eu

Now, a big yes as to the fact that there is, ideed a big difference between the "systemic approach" and "complex science". That is precisley, if I may dare speak for Giovanni and myself, f.i., the point, namely: we can at least differenciate three quite different takes, thus:

i) Reductionsim

ii) Systemic and holistic appraoches

iii) Complexity science

I fully agree with Carlos's viewpoint, even though I am still in favour of the development of a modern complexity theory embracing a dialogic systemic-reductionist approach. See, for example, my metaphore on water.

Dear Carlos , It is obviouse that "Complex systems" are not limited to physical objects ( say particles,forces,etc) , As we know a neuron or brain neural network or ecology of a pool are also complex systems, these are the members of the huge set of complex syetems, However the analysis of the behaviour of such a system is under the realm of physics and mathematics, I mention some examples:

1 )The critical behaviour of all complex systems may be categorized in the set of 7 catastrophic behaviour that detailed analysis was discovered by Rene Thom (see catastrophe theory)

2) Many behaviour of complex systems such as "celleular motion or migration" during  embryonal developmant has been approached by quantum  and statistical physics.

3) Artificial intelligence based on neural network theory (e.g. Hopfield network) is another example to approach the human intelligence as a consequence of brain complex systems.

I brought a paragraph qouted from your reference namely;

http://www.complexity.ecs.soton.ac.uk/index.php?page=q1

" Complexity science is a broad and multi-disciplinary subject. In a wide range of systems that are the subject of study in biology, in the social sciences and in industrial applications, computational modelling is undertaken to study the behaviour of these sytems; Mathematical developments and modelling approaches from physics can be used to better understand these systems; And expertise in domains from software engineering to systems biology can be used both to inspire new approaches and apply new results "

Finally, the third item you mentioned as; complexity science, is a science not an approach or take, as two others: Reductionism and systemic approaches.

Regards

Dear Manouchehr, no good science can be possible without a physical ground. Otherwise, we enter into pseudo-science: astrology, numerology, and the like. (besides, it is that physical ground of good science what makes it possible - and, moreover guarantees - that any experiment be reproducible.

Complex systems are, therefore, physical systems, of course. That, however does not entail any reductionism of complex systems to physycalism - or, as you mention, to mathematics. (As to math, as we knoe, it is, if you allow me the expression, "the" language of science - at large). Again, no good math is possible, no matter what, without a solid command of math. This is not to be taken as a mathematical reductionism or a sort of mathematical determinsim.

Math is pivotal in the study of complex systems precisely, as you mention, thanks to two tools: modeling and simulation. Current spearhead science - in pysyics as well as in sociology, in biology or in political science, f.i. - is based or orroted on that cultural device that is computer. Furthermore, computing science is a necessary eference for good spearhead science via simulation.

As you know, H. Pagels wrote a beautiful book about this, which is already a classical: The Dreams of Reason.

Dear Monouchehr, I presented the simple example of water as a complex physical system (considering all its properties) to show that, in order to be fully understood, it requires to be studied through both systemic and reductionist approaches working together to this end.

I agree completely with Giovanni and Andrew and partially with Carlos, for their deep understanding about Reductionism etc. However for a final deduction the contemporary science position should be placed in the midway spectrum between two extremes end i.e. Reductionism and Systemic approach, although, unfortunately, the mathematical and physical models as research tools have not been fitted for the latter completely, and i anticipate that the future of science will be (partly) in domain of "systemic view"realm and hence for example the secret of "thought" and "imagination" as excellent outcomes of Brain function will be resolved hopefully via these approaches. 

This is a great academic discussion that has, and will continue to have practical applications. However, it can become difficult to follow when we try to compare very different theories and especially if there is a lack of universal definitions. In those cases, it can be hard to see the application to all fields of study.

The discussion began by asking if we trust theory reduction, stating that it refers to the whole being nothing more than the sum of its parts. The description of reductionism is a good start and helped get this discussion started, but there is more to it. Reductionism uses the parts (or components) of a system in an attempt to describe the system itself, but if that was all, it would be similar to complex systems. Both look at parts of a system, but reductionists do not study the relationship and interactions between components. In complex systems, that is an important part as the interactions create collective behaviors.  

Complex problems are often made up of what can be seen as well as indirect effects caused by the interrelationships between parts. For example, as a result of a toothache a person may also have a headache. The headache might be “referred pain.” This is an example of one part of the body that is injured (the tooth) causing a different body part to be in distress. Reductionism can be linked with the analysis of a problem; systems thinking (system approaches) with synthesis. I hope this flowed. I just wanted bring up the issues of comparisons and definitions. I look forward to this discussion continuing.

Thanks so much Steve for your nice words and for joining in!

Yes dear @Gianni, ..."every single second we put ourselves in the hands of reductionism!" Eventhough, I do not think that Big Science and Theory of Everything will become reality!

I find this scheme by Velikovsky good, speaking the story on Reductionism and Expansionism

http://storyality.wordpress.com/2014/05/07/storyality-112-on-reductionism-and-determinism-and-expansionism-and-indeterminism/

 Dear Giovanni,

Your question is a challenge for each of us. The TofE seems to be the holistic science as such. Regarding as phenomena are the very complex structures of material and immaterial systems, we should go this way and approach the TofE. However, I am afraid that most of us are not able to understand even tiny parts of a discipline.

Your last phrase was:   “Do you trust theory reduction, stating that the whole is nothing more than the sum of its parts?”

Dear Giovanni,

You deal with systems and you know very well that even the simplest systems are not only sums of their parts. There must be an immense and innate synergism what we should be able to fancy and understand.

We humans can recognise and know things only collectively but to be aware of the science of sciences, the quiescence of the knowledge seems to be impossible.  

Dear Marcel,

I would like to know your opinion and not those of some philosophers!

I would propose again to the criticism of all of you guys what I advanced before, cause I think it can be possibly used as an example of how to proceed asymptotically towards a Theory of Everything that is not ill-founded like could  be that one advanced either by reductionism or by sistemic approach only. It is clear to everyone that reductionism cannot recognize novel emerging properties. I shall clarify my thought with a simple example on the necessary (to me) dialogy between reductionist and sistemic approaches - where “dialogical” means the union of two antagonistic terms in order to understand a complex problem. Just to say that dialogy currently appears to increase its importance as a fundamental key for the interpretation of complex system issues, like in recent complexity system theory.

Think of water (H2O), for example, that is the most abundant compound on Earth's surface, covering 70 percent of the planet. Water is made up of hydrogen ions (H+) linked to hydroxyl ions (OH-) to form H2O. In nature, water exists in liquid, solid, and gaseous states. It is in dynamic equilibrium between the liquid and gas states at standard temperature and pressure. Water is Cohesive and Adhesive. Water Maintains a Relatively Constant Temperature. Water Is a Good Solvent. Water Expands When It Freezes. Water Has a Neutral pH. By a simple reductionist approach we could never infer water properties from the properties of each individual atomic element (gases). Thus, water has unique and irreducible properties like all systems that are emerging when component objects are joined together in constraining interrelations to "construct" a higher-level aggregate object (H2O). Those are novel properties that unpredictably come from a combination of two simpler constituents. However, we still need to know that water is made up of hydrogen ions (H+) linked to hydroxyl ions (OH-) to form H2O, and this because, for example, water [H2O] can dissociate into hydrogen [H+] and hydroxyl [OH-] ions, and pH is a relative measure of hydrogen to hydroxyl ions. In this sense, reductionism and a systemic perspective if focused on the same issue, are both necessary within the complex system approach. In other words, I believe that reductionist and sistemic approaches should work together concurring to inform one another reciprocally to feed the emerging knowledge on complex systems.

Within this one discussion, Dr. Zurlini integrated many areas of inquiry and actually asked five or six related questions. The questions are so far-reaching that the implications affect almost all areas of academics. I want to concentrate on the main question that asked “Do you trust theory reduction, stating that the whole is nothing more than the sum of its parts?”

Reducing phenomena to the interactions of its parts or to understand a system by looking at only the sum of its parts does have some appeal, and a unified interpretation of all phenomena is attractive, at least, on an academic level. Reductionists talk about causality and even emergent phenomena. However, the understanding of what this means seems incomplete. In other words what happens when the parts of a whole interact? A systems or even integrative approach allows for the emergence of something greater than the sum of the whole.

I do not agree that the whole is nothing more than the sum of its parts. Systems theories continue to show us how very different disciplines can interact and complement each other. The more various fields interact, the more we understand; and this is not due to simply adding our disciplines together. New understanding and applications are due to combing and weaving our new understandings into previously unrealized conceptualizations.

The Theory of Everything is an overwhelming concept. Maybe it could become a reality if knowledge is actually finite; once we know everything there is to know about everything. As long as there are unknown variables, how they interact with what is already known might be better answered using system approaches.

The moment when we know everything will never appear! Knowledge is a sort of infinity matter! System approach is the good one. I do not believe in the Theory of Everything!

There is a mathematical side to reduction theory that may be of interest to followers of this thread, especially if we are considering @Giovanni Zurlini's introduction of the Theory of Everything.    The basic approach is to eliminate variables associated with symmetries.   Hamilton, Lagrange, Euler and Jacobi are credited with giving birth to reduction theory in which manifolds with structure with high dimensionality are reduced by eliminating symmetries to obtain a lower dimension manifold with similar structure.

This is part of the basic approach given in

N. Nikolaev, Reduction Theory and Dirac Geometry, M.Sc. Thesis, University of Waterloo, 2011:

http://www.math.toronto.edu/nikolaev/Files/130727170424.pdf

Giovanni, I like the straight forward example of water that you have used to show the interplay between systems approach and reductionism to increase our understanding of a system. Using either of these approaches alone will not increase our understanding as well as using them such that they inform one another enabling us to take the next step in our level of understanding. Although  not all the properties of water cannot be inferred from the properties of hydrogen and oxygen or the hydrogen ion and hydroxyl ion, it does give us some insights into the nature of the interaction between these components and the properties that emerge as a result of that interaction.

Dear Giovanni_Zurlini

I agree with almost all responses.

good luck

Best Wishes

Amjed K. Resen

I agree with the explanation of Dr. Mohammad Firoz Khan.

Regards

SM Najim