网范文：“Universal Dynamic Complexity as the Basis for Theoretic ” 最近提出的新的、普遍适用的要求,以现实为基础的动态复杂性的概念提供了一个统一的基础，关于任何真正的完整理解,多组分、多层次的系统交互的实体,包括全球文明的发展。这篇范文讲述了这一问题。这个至关重要的扩展与其他现有的概念，复杂性是由于无限制,严格推导出动态多值的概念。这里描述任何真正的系统交互的序列，动态随机变化的多个系统配置,每个人带来动态交互组件的纠缠。
一般来说,复杂性水平较低，动态复杂性等普遍定义的人数的增长函数显式地获得系统实现。现实的和普遍的本质决定了其独特的角色。下面的范文进行详述。
ABSTRACT
The recently proposed new, universally applicable, rigorously derived and reality-based concept of dynamic complexity provides a unified basis for the causally complete understanding of any real, multi-component and multi-level system of interacting entities, including the case of earth system and global civilisation development. This crucial extension with respect to other existing notions of “complexity” is obtained due the unrestricted, universally nonperturbative analysis of arbitrary interaction process leading to the new, rigorously derived concept of dynamically multivalued (redundant) entanglement of interacting components.
Any real system with interaction is described here as a sequence of autonomously emerging “levels of complexity”, where each level includes unceasing, dynamically random change of multiple system configurations, or “realisations”, each of them resulting from dynamic entanglement of interaction components coming, generally, from lower complexity levels. Dynamic complexity as such is universally defined by a growing function of the number of those explicitly obtained system realisations (or related rate of their change). Mathematically rigorous, realistic and universal nature of unreduced dynamic complexity determines its unique role as a basis for theoretical ecology dealing just with explicit manifestations of very high, multilevel interaction complexity of unreduced planetary dynamics.
This conclusion is confirmed by several directions of universal complexity application to global change understanding and monitoring. They include the rigorously substantiated necessity of civilisation transition to the superior level of complexity involving new, intrinsically unified and causally complete kind of knowledge (initiated by the “universal science of complexity”), qualitatively new kind of material production, social structure, and infrastructure. We show why that new level of civilisation development is intrinsically “sustainable”, i. e. characterised by creative, complexity-increasing interaction between “production” and “natural resources” that replaces current contradiction between them. The latter cannot be avoided in principle within conventional, “protective” ecology approach, which is naturally extended to the qualitatively new, creative ecology at the superior level of knowledge and living. Transition to the new kind of knowledge involves a deep conceptual shift from abstract, vain and purposeless (but also subjectively “repulsive” and objectively dangerous) “calculation/modelling of empirical observations” dominating in modern science (and “way of life” in general) to the unreduced understanding and conscious creation involving rigorous and intrinsically unified description and positive development of such “complex matters” as “life” (on all scales), “art”, “intelligence”, and “spirit”.
New stage in ecological studies: The need for a unified theoretical basis
Modern level of ecological research and Earth system understanding is characterised by elaborated empirical knowledge about the planet and civilisation state, including accumulated and growing practical problems and urgent need for their solution. Persisting degradation of natural environment and “human dimensions” (both within and beyond material “living conditions”) is thoroughly measured and documented in almost every small detail by a technically, empirically powerful civilisation that cannot, however, initiate a definite, provable positive change towards unreduced sustainability (even in its most technically “developed” centres). The evident reason for that contradiction is directly related to the absence of genuine, causally complete understanding of occurring processes complexity, at all its levels and on the full, global scale. Existing “general ideas” and “computer simulations” (often indistinguishable by their result from straightforward “interpolation” of previous evolution tendencies) are prone to “unpredictable jumps” and “regular errors” of the same order as the “main” effect they describe, giving rise to “scientifically based” but opposed opinions about the very fact, direction, meaning and consequences of the occurring “global change”.
Such situation in ecology and “Earth system science” is not surprising at all, taking into account that canonical, scholar science fails explicitly in its attempt to understand the real origin, structure and dynamics of even much simpler entities, starting from the simplest massive object, the isolated electron. Well-known “quantum mysteries”, “relativistic paradoxes” and other “weird” features of “new physics” remain unexplained for a hundred years now, despite most powerful computer and mathematical tools applied, which means that “rigorous” and “exact” canonical science paradigm is based on postulated para-scientific mystification, already at its most fundamental levels. Can one imagine that this type of knowledge can be well suited for the needed consistent, reliable understanding of the whole planetary life complexity, including innumerable elementary constituents and the deepest, ever changing hierarchy of their interactions?
In view of the evident huge deficiency of conventional science in genuine understanding of real system dynamics, one may have serious doubts about any possibility of truly scientific, rigorously based and objectively, provably reliable description of Earth system dynamics, or theoretical ecology, able to reproduce the best efficiency of a physical theory. Quickly changing from useless to dangerous in quality, the scholar science doctrine explosively inflates in quantity of its separated imitations of reality, which is another reason for urgent transition to the new, intrinsically unified and totally realistic kind of knowledge that can only be based on the consistent, reality-based concept of dynamic complexity. This is especially evident in the case of ecology directly dealing with the unified diversity of unreduced complexity of Humanised Nature. In this we outline the universal concept of complexity with the above properties and results of its application to Earth system analysis, showing why and how one can indeed obtain its causally complete and practically efficient understanding [1,2].
Universal science of complexity vs scholar “science of complexity” and “nonlinear science”
Thinking about description of ecological system complexity, one should take into account that usual “science of complexity”, “nonlinear science” and their various branches and approaches are all parts of the same, basically unchanged canonical theory containing no really new “paradigm” and thus inheriting inevitably all scholar science deficiencies: basic separation from reality (over-simplification), irreducible separation between fields and approaches, absence of creativity [3], and resulting practical inefficiency [1,4,5]. The latter cannot be hidden any more behind successes of empirically based technology, as it was before. Blind, but critically powerful technology has become really dangerous only today because now it can alter (and destroy) natural system complexity within its total depth. Universal Dynamic Complexity for Theoretic Ecology and Sustainability Transition 3 Contrary to that spoiled relation between conventional science and reality it tries to describe, the Universal Science of Complexity [1,2] derives all existing entities and their properties from the unreduced, universally nonperturbative analysis of underlying interaction processes, in exact correspondence with their dynamic emergence in Nature.
It involves qualitatively new phenomenon, concept and “paradigm” called dynamic redundance, or multivaluedness (involving also dynamic entanglement) and consistently derived within the unreduced analysis, without any postulated “principles”. As a result, all existing entities are obtained as intrinsically unified parts of the universal hierarchy of dynamic complexity of the world, while all the observed types and properties of their behaviour, such as chaos/randomness, self-organisation/order, synchronisation, fractality, adaptability, and change/creativity, are obtained as particular cases of the unique dynamical process of complexity development and system realisation change (see below, sections 3–5, for more details). The above properties of the universal science of complexity are actually the basic demands for any truly consistent knowledge, which is unique as such, but has multiple and unified aspects, similar to the real world it describes. Since ecology deals with the unreduced, full-scale complexity of natural systems and is supposed to be of critical practical importance, it has no right to deviate from the demands for efficient science of complexity, which means also that ecology must become now a wellsubstantiated, “exact” science, as opposed to its half-political, half-philosophical, speculative, and often futile version of “degradation measurement”.
Universal science of complexity reveals the exact, fundamental reason for the inevitable canonical science deficiency (cf. [3]): because of perturbative reduction, it describes a dynamically single-valued, or unitary, projection of reality and takes into account only one system realisation from its many really existing, incompatible and permanently changing realisations. “Multi-stability”, “unstable periodic orbits”, “attractors”, etc. are but single-valued (sequential, trajectorial), non-universal, abstract imitations of unreduced, omnipresent dynamic multivaluedness of any real interaction process. It follows that any practically efficient “science of ecology”, being a “natural consumer” of the science of complexity, should never use unitary substitutes for dynamic complexity (including “chaos”, “nonlinearity”, self-organisation, “criticality”, etc.), since they are basically inconsistent, quantitatively and qualitatively incorrect, and provide no true understanding, but only infinite series of “well established” (= “computer-simulated”) imitations of reality.
网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文作品权归所有；未经官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯作品权现象，英语论文网站，英语论文范文，保留一切法学追诉权。()
更多范文欢迎访问我们主页 当然有需求可以和我们 联系交流。-X()
|
