Multiple Competing Interests

Given the elusive nature of complex adaptive systems and the problems, dilemmas and polarities accompanying these systems, it is readily apparent that the study of and understanding of complex systems is critical. As Miller and Page (2007, p. 7) conclude:

“The science of complex systems and its ability to explore the interest in between is especially relevant for some of the most pressing issues of our modern world. Many of the opportunities and challenges before us­ globalization, sustainability, combating terrorism, preventing epidemics, and so on-are complex. Each of these domains consists of a set of diverse actors who dynamically interact with one another awash 1n a sea of feedbacks.”

Miller and Page (2007, p. 7) arrive at this conclusion by identifying a set of “interests” that intersect in the study of complex systems. They seem to be hovering on the edge of acknowledging the presence of multi-tiers dilemmas (and even distilled polarities) in many, if not all, complex systems. While they are relating these interests specifically to the computer-based modeling of complex systems, their list seems to be directly relevant to any engagement in the study of these system:

“It is the interest in between various fields, like biology and eco­ nomics and physics and computer science. Problems like organization, adaptation, and robustness transcend all of these fields. For example, issues of organization arise when biologists think about how cells form, economists study the origins of firms, physicists look at how atoms align, and computer scientists form networks of machines.

It is the interest in between the usual extremes we use in modeling. We want to study models with a few agents, rather than those with only one or two or infinitely many. We want to understand agents that are neither extremely brilliant nor extremely stupid, but rather live somewhere in the middle.

It is the interest in between stasis and utter chaos. The world tends not to be completely frozen or random, but rather it exists in between these. two states. We want to know when and why productive systems emerge and how they can persist.

It is the interest in between control and anarchy. We find robust patterns of organization and act1v1ty m systems that have no central control or authority. We have corporations—or, for that matter, human bodies and beehives-that maintain a recognizable form and activity over long periods of time, even though their constituent parts exist on time scales that are orders of magnitude less long lived.

It is the interest in between the continuous and the discrete. The behavior of systems as we transition between the continuous and discrete is often surprising. Many systems do not smoothly move between these two realms, but instead exhibit quite different patterns of behavior, even though from the outside they seem so “close.” ·

It is the interest in between the usual details of the world. We need to find those features of the world where the details do not matter, where large equivalence classes of structure, action, and so on lead to a deep sameness of being.”