What Actually Is Complexity Science?

[@not_David]

Thanks to anyone who took the time to watch, I appreciate it! If you enjoyed this video the next one will be coming out in a month or so and will be on Network theory. EDIT1: I just realized there are ads playing on the video which was not my intention as this is not monetized nor does it contain copyrighted material. I am working to disable them but the one page I can do that is giving back an error at the moment. EDIT2: For the life of me I can't figure out how to remove ads. The instructions on google appear to be outdated. Apologies and thank you to anyone who puts up with it!

[@raymondharding5473]

Hope you get a couple cents from it at least! :)

[@se7964]

This deserves way more views. Excellent animation, pacing, and presentation of ideas. Peaked and kept my interest!

[@not_David]

Thanks so much! I honestly wasn't expecting any views so I've been extremely happy with the positive feedback the video has received. I'm happy people are enjoying it, it took a lot of work hahah

[@GopherYourself]

As a fellow physics grad that does research in complexity science, your videos are great. Complexity science is exciting and should be exposed to more laypeople! I remember how mindblown I was when I found out about emergent phenomena years ago, it's honestly one of the most incredible visual representations of what's great about complex systems. Maybe one day it'll stand alongside the other popular fields of physics in popsci and laymen follow the exciting breakthroughs in this field the same way they do for astronomy or particle physics :)

[@not_David]

Thank you! I agree. I really don't see enough complexity stuff on youtube so i was really trying to fill that niche. We need more people doing complexity!

[@jembers9997]

This was a really great video for someone thinking about studying physics in college! Glad that I'll know to consider the intersections between these kinds of fields for classes in the future :)

[@not_David]

I'm glad to hear it! Though im not so much trying to push anyone to physics with this video (or at least, its not my goal now, hard to say what it was when I posted that video). Rather, whatever your studying you shouldn't box yourself into a single thing. No matter what you end up studying, take some art courses, take some philosophy, read some books, etc. Its really the thing i wish i could go back to my undergrad self and tell.

[@Taraquin]

This is a very well done video; short and succinct and well phrased, easy to follow for a layman. Thank you for taking the time to explain the basic distinction between complexity and complicatedness. Looking forward to your future videos, hopefully where you will take the time to explain the essence of these hybrid physics subdisciplines you mentioned..

[@not_David]

Thanks so much, I'm glad you enjoyed it! I really appreciate the feedback!

[@gametrashstuff2312]

My god--I've been looking for ways to explain to people why saying "all science can be reduced to physics/math" is wrong, and you've finally put it together in a way that is so explicit and clear. I've been thinking so much about complexity and network theory and it's so great to see it explicitly stated here. Complex systems are reducible to individually deterministic parts, but it is the *interactions* between simple agents that we care about, not simply reducing things down to the level of individual agents. I discovered you from your platooned um's video and I'm not regretting it at all. Incredible stuff.

[@not_David]

Thank you so much! Its admittedly hard for me to re-watch that first video but im glad that its still holding up even for people who started with the newer more polished video.

[@thieltube390]

Love this approach. Looking forward to more from this channel.

[@not_David]

I really appreciate it, thank you!

[@jojodasjojo]

4:05 maiby I don't understand, but coffee is a simple problem? I thing making coffe is extremly complicated. Not just because of all the things that happen before I can buy coffee, but also the actual making is complex - at least if you don't have an automatic machine. You have to get the right themperature, the right amount of coffee for the water you use and the right amount of water for your cup, grind size... OK... maiby I make it comlicated myself :)

[@jonathanp___________3606]

Does that mean complex numbers are complicated, not complex?

[@not_David]

I would argue so, though given how ingrained the name is now I don't suggest calling them "complicated numbers" lol

[@chandankunal]

This is sooooo good and deserves so many more viewers!

[@not_David]

Thanks so much! I appriciate the kind words :)

[@merlin9556]

Wow! Good job, The graphics are great, the topic is very interesting - would love to see more from you.

[@not_David]

Thanks so much, I really appriciate the feedback! These videos take a while to make (especially with my degree hanging over my head) but the next one should be out in 2 weeks or so (fingers crossed).

[@pal181]

I can't agree. If birds, cells, traders share basically the same decision making algorithm in one aspect of their existence, which accounts for other "copies", doesn't make system something more, just because you don't know the algorithm.

[@hoboeyjobi7020]

innovation happens when combining two previously unassociated things

[@user-sl6gn1ss8p]

"here I talked about traders as people" would be the best footnote I've read in a while if not for the one calling TIS-100 a "fun introduction"

[@not_David]

excuse me TIS-100 is a roller coster ride of emotion. 10/10 would `sort sequence' again

[@gfxb3177]

Let's share this guy's video to the max

[@blobberberry]

999th viewer here! I'm getting a PhD in biomathematics so I love the interdisciplinary subject matter. Keep up the great work! 😄

[@TheJayman213]

One keyword I feel is notably absent here is "feedback".

[@adamq925]

What graphics/animation program are you mostly using?

[@EllinasParamythas]

Could we get some videos on recurrence plots?

[@MarcusDekenah]

Your blender animations are a pleasure to watch.

[@TCRS-zb4wv]

hi David! phisics and science are inseparable and they'll depend on each other

[@not_David]

I'm actually not David hahah. But yes, I 100% agree.

[@ReflinWulf]

I like this video

[@benroth7806]

Solid video Not David!

[@not_David]

Thanks stranger

[@itamarteuerstein8531]

Its a shame there is no super like. This video is the first to deserve one!

[@not_David]

The kind words are worth more than a super like, thank you :)

[@ksalarang]

this is the topic I'm interested in the most! Putting all arguments aside I feel like complex systems and emergency are the gates to understanding life, the brain and the consciousness. Please continue on this important and unnoticed topic!

[@sbepic1235]

Doesn’t a computer fit the definition of complex you give? -Each individual logic gate gas local rules and is fairly simple. -The role each logic gate has is often hard to understand (unless viewed through layers of abstraction)

[@not_David]

I think there is certainly a lot of similarites, but there are some differences that make it not complex. I have to admit I don't have the computer background in order to make percise arguments about this so take these with a pinch of salt. I will say though, smarter people that I have discussed this (with a lot of great resources online, especially comparing computers and brains) and have pretty much all concluded that a computer is not a complex phenomena. -One of the key differences is that the local rules are externally imposed. There is some engineer somewhere that tells that logic gate what to do (in some maybe abstract sense), and any deviation from this rule would effectively return an error. This is typically not true for complex systems where agents and inturn the emerged phenomena are highly adaptable to any sort of "stimulus". A computer is very much not fault tollerant to individual parts being removed or broken, where as a complex phenomea would be to a much larger degree. -I think here we really run into problems of semantics of what it means to be "hard to understand". I don't fully understand what a particular transistor is doing, however the key difference is that I know it is doing it in service of the greater computation. A bird doesn't do what it does in service of making a flock - the flock is a consequence of the birds individual and collective dynamics. I think theres also arguments that you could also reduce much of the computer down to give you a very minimal set of components that ultimately could still perform a given computation (though certainly the instruction set would need to be changed), where as with a complex phenomena you could not do this. I'll also be remise if i didn't mention that as we (likely) see the inclusion of AI into more and more aspects, as well as increased attention to neuromorphic computing, i do see eventually computers closing that gap.

[@jordanrozum]

@@not_David I agree that a computer is a poor example of a "non-complex" system. If a computer isn't complex, then I would think that anything you can simulate on it isn't either, which would mean that basically nothing is complex.

[@not_David]

@@jordanrozum This gave me so much to think about while I was on my run lol thank you. I think its a great point you've raised. I don't agree with it but I do find it hard to formalize my disagreement concretely. Let me give two of my main thoughts regarding this though: 1) Consider the famous Conways game of life. This is fairly universally agreed to be a complex system - simple angents, which, through a set of very simple rules that all agents follow, give rise to emergent phonomena, and it has many halmarks of emergence such as divergent susceptibilities, etc.. However, you don't need to play the game of life on a computer, you can easily play it on a piece of paper (and this is more or less how it was done originally). But it would be difficult to argue that that piece of paper is complex. So now we have two choices. a) we accept your premise, in which we case we have to conclude the game of life is not complex because it is being simulated on something that is not complex, or b) we conclude that something that is not complex can provide the setting for something that is complex. I think this is an interesting philosophical point but I don't have more to say on it. 2) Suppose that we consider a modern day computer is indeed complex by your argument. I think this actually raises more issues because it neccesitates an aribitrary deliniation between complex and not complex. For example, it would be hard to justify that an early electronic computer (such as an ENIAC) is complex. It is almost the embodiment of a complicated thing which follows a very specific algorithm from which it cannot deviate or adapt. But this is true for a modern computer as well, it also follows algorithms from which it cannot deviate. Those algorithms might be able to do more things, but they are no less fundamentally know-able or rigid (in contrast to a complex system). So where then do you draw the line that delinates a complex computer from a non-complex one? To be clear, I think such computers do exist, however not in the von-neumann computer architecture. For example neuromorphic computers are becoming highly researched, but it is fundamentally different to the computer you are using.

[@jordanrozum]

@@not_David Thanks for your response; these counterpoints are well reasoned and raise interesting issues. Complexity is notoriously difficult to quantify, so some disagreement is inevitable. But to your points specifically: 1) I think it's important to think about where the logic is embedded. In the example of playing the game of life with pencil and paper, it isn't embedded in the paper, but in the brain of the human who's playing. In a computer simulation, that logic is embedded in the computer itself. One way some people think about the complexity of a system is in terms of its ability to perform computation. In this view, the game is life is complex because it's Turing complete. Under this school of thought, computers are unambiguously complex. Of course, there are other perspectives, and no universally agreed upon definition of complexity. 2) This is indeed a thorny question, but it's thorny regardless of whether you think computers are complex or not; people have the same argument about biological systems, e.g., How many neurons does it take to have a complex brain? There's nothing wrong in my mind with treating complexity as a continuum.

[@xxportalxx.]

Personally I find the intersections between disciplines to be the most interesting, however as someone with a background in engineering ik the reason we avoid complexity is bc it introduces unknowns that are difficult and often expensive to account for. Additionally as humanity develops more complicated systems it seems we create more complex problems, and as a result we have little idea what to do with them. Often times the loud folks will say that the solution is actually simple, and it's merely x group's fault, instead of admitting that our issues are in reality very complex and nobody has a comprehensive plan for how to unpack them no less solve them.

[@limyten6413]

This is the most important STEAM information I have ever received in my short life. Thank you.

[@yourfutureself4327]

💚

[@luciddixon8202]

love this channel so far!! so glad i found you Not David

[@justinblin]

In 5 years when this channel is famous it’d be cool to see where it started

[@Torbjorn6452]

Incredible video, you deserve to be better known.

[@strangebird5974]

I'm not sure I'm down with adopting "complicated" as a beefed up version of a simple problem, since it basically has the same etymology as "complex". I do like the distinction between simple and complex problems, though. And I like another related distinction: easy vs. hard problems. The etymology of "easy" is the same as "adjacent" (I think). Thus, easy and hard problems are described with reference to how much work it takes to complete them from a certain point or for a certain actor; or how likely they are to be successfully completed, again from some reference point. A simple problem can be hard and a complex problem can be easy. Another term I like is "system" that you also mention in the video.

[@not_David]

thats a really good point about etymology... I hadn't thought of that. It wasn't my choice of the word but when you put it that way I wish I could have commented about it in the video had I known about it at the time.

[@EmmaS.Schuff]

Can’t believe you don’t have more views or subscribers. Your work is beyond incredible!

[@not_David]

haha thank you. I have to admit I am already overwhelmed with the amount of views that the videos do have

[@minecraftpike406]

Holy crap not david, thank you for putting the effort into making such an amazing video, my mind is blown

[@not_David]

Thank you :) even if I am maybe not as happy with the quality of the editing and animation of this video I'm still glad others are enjoying it.