Talk:Complex adaptive system

message: There is a "System science portal" box hovering over the caption for the second, bar-graph image.
This is really annoying; I have to copy/paste, or open up the source-code to read a caption.
I can't see how to immediately fix this, but I think someone should address this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.132.171 (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Systems science portal" Icon Clipping Image Caption

message: As it sits, the external link to the Redfish Group with no description looks like spam.  Any comments or differing characterization of the link before it gets removed? --Blainster 23:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Commercial link appropriate?

message: The universe seems to be arranged in hierarchies. There are various levels at which you can understand it. The level we are most famililar with is the level of everyday life. Going down we run into the levels of organs, cells, molecular biology, chemistry. Each level has its own laws which work in certian "special cases" with all violations at the "extreams". Complex Adaptive Swarms exhibit similar layered behavior also, at each layer the swarm is made of smaller complex adaptive systems. This layered behavior doesn't appear in swarms made of simple systems. This all seems to imply that either there is no bottom to the layers of the universe(and no TOE) or, the bottom layer is made of smart, adaptive particles.--SurrealWarrior 18:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 12:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting

message: Jon Awbrey 05:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes & Queries

message: The Revision as of 13:50, 20 December 2006 Michael Hardy, (→Definitions - cquote) resulted in the deletion of the original text. But I can't figure out how to fix it. Help, anyone?Fireproeng 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Fireproeng 18:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions need fix

message: i'm having trouble understanding these articles.  i.e. complexity almost doesn't say anything specific.  can we have an example of a complex adaptive system, what makes it complex, what makes it adaptive?  Is a thermostat one?  or is it not complex?
a quote from the article (a definition?)
:What distinguishes a CAS from a pure multi-agent system (MAS) is the focus on top-level properties and features like self-similarity, complexity, emergence and self-organization. A MAS is simply defined as a system composed of multiple, interacting agents. In CASs, the agents as well as the system are adaptive: the system is self-similar. A CAS is a complex, self-similar collectivity of interacting adaptive agents. Complex Adaptive Systems are characterised by a high degree of adaptive capacity, giving them resilience in the face of perturbation.
:Other important properties are adaptation
the article just keeps saying the same words over and over again: self-similarity, compexity, adaptive capacity... but it defines none of these.  I have no clue what self-similarity is doing here, it usually refers to a subsystem being similar to the whole system, of course this is strictly speaking impossible for a finite system so i don't get it.  i also don't see how that makes it adaptive.  does it make a snowflake complex?
pick a few systems and define in what way they are self similar, define what it means for the system to be adaptive.
the section on biology only discusses a technical issue of the left hand wall in evolution of complexity.  again, it doesn't describe what it means for a cell or a mouse to be a complex adaptive system (other than the obvious gut sense that of course that sounds like what they are.  work your way down the scale from mouse to cell to ribosome to enzyme to amino acid to carbon atom to proton.  at what point in this hierarchy is the system no longer a complex adaptive system?
I'd try writing it, but i've been trying for 20 years to no avail.  the best i can come up with is a collection of 60 descriptions of interesting systems and let the reader decide on the categories if there are any.  perhaps it is too early in history for such a treatment, these things are only 150 years old.  I think it took longer than that to define what oxygen was.Wikiskimmer 08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, an example might help. I'll muse on this for a while... also, might I suggest that the Literature and External Links be somehow worked to be in-line references with the text instead? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  maybe an example or two would help? 

message: I have removed the following list of scientists from the article several times now:
* Ozalp Babaoglu University of Bologna
* Stephanie Forrest University of New Mexico
* Melanie Mitchell Portland State University
* Elizabeth McMillan Open University
* http://www.dnawales.co.uk/ Paul T Thomas, University of Glamorgan Business School, Wales, UK 
* Gregory Todd Jones, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA USA
* Ahmed Elsayed Mohamed University of Mansoura Egypt.
An anomynous editor keep putting this list back. Now I wonder, why he wants this list here in the first place. Maybe he can explain first. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  That list of Researchers and scientists 

message: See modern view of open systems and systems far from equilibrium: there are a "hard Science" behind Complex adaptive systems theory!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.111.77.219 (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  And about Thermodynamics? 

message: The illustration at the start of the Overview has no citation.  Checking its origin it was produced by a wikipedia editor "inspired" by a couple of books.  Aside from the fact that it is inaccurate it is clearly original research.   If no citation is produced to support it I am removing it again.   --Snowded TALK  19:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration 

message: 1) In the quoted book M. Mitchell Waldrop. (1994). Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. - I have to refer to the Simon & Schuster Paperback issue - M. Mitchell Waldrop wrote a protocol of a lecture of John Holland "THE ECONOMY AS AN EVOLVING COMPLEX SYSTEM". You can not cite that as an original text of John Holland.
2) Also Waldrop´s protocol is cited wrong, what we can see in the article is a summary of what Waldrop wrote and is not marked as a summary.
3) Even in the original paper of John Holland the article citation can not be found.
Santa Fe Institute: "The economy as an evolving complex system - The proceedings of the evolutionary paths of the global economy workshop, held september, 1987 in Santa Fe, New Mexico", Editor: Anderson, Philip W. Addison-Wesley, 1988
--Torbrax (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation about John Holland ist wrong 

message: As said before the John Holland citation was just wrong and the links for the references of the other two citations did not work any more.--Torbrax (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  all definitions were cited wrong or do not lead to existing references 

message: Eight years ago in 2005 (see here) this article offered a set of three definitions:
::A CAS is a complex, self-similar collection of interacting adaptive agents. The study of CAS focus on complex, emergent and macroscopic properties of the system.  Various definitions have been offered by different researchers:
::*John H. Holland
:: A Complex Adaptive System (CAS) is a dynamic network of many agents  (which may represent cells, species, individuals, firms, nations) acting in parallel, constantly acting and reacting to what the other agents are doing. The control of a CAS tends to be highly  dispersed and decentralized. If there is to be any coherent behavior in the system, it has to arise from competition and cooperation among the agents themselves. The overall behavior of the system is the result of a huge number of decisions made every  moment by many individual agents. (source: Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos by Michael Waldrop) 
::*Kevin Dooley
:: A CAS behaves/evolves according to three key principles: order is emergent as opposed to predetermined (c.f. Neural Networks), the system's history is irreversible, and the system's future is often unpredictable. The basic building blocks of the CAS are agents. Agents scan their environment and develop schema representing interpretive and action rules. These schema are subject to change and evolution. (source: K. Dooley, AZ State University)  
::*Other definitions
 Macroscopic collections of simple (and typically nonlinearly) interacting units that are endowed with the ability to evolve and adapt to a changing environment. (source: Complexity in Social Science glossary a research training project of the European Commission) 
Now in 2013 only the following fraction is left, see (here):
:: A CAS is a complex, self-similar collection of interacting adaptive agents. The study of CAS focuses on complex, emergent and macroscopic properties of the system.  Various definitions have been offered by different researchers:
::*John H. Holland "Cas [complex adaptive systems] are systems that have a large numbers of components, often called agents, that interact and adapt or learn."Holland, John H.; (2006). "Studying Complex Adaptive Systems." Journal of Systems Science and Complexity 19 (1): 1-8. http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/41486
An other Wiki (see here (also created by User:JFromm)) even list five defintions by John H. Holland, Kevin Dooley, Murray Gell-Mann, Stephanie Forrest, and an rather unknown source. 
Now it seems like a good idea to either integrated the section in the article, expand it, or create a Wikiquote article. Either way, the current quote must be checked and improved. -- Mdd (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We really need a third party source which reviews the various definitions an schools.  For example the constraint based definition (Juarrero & others including my HBR article) is not there.  The distinction between human and non-human complex systems and the disputes around that are not reflected.  The field has matured, fragmented and developed.   However as far as I know no one has yet summarised the field to the point where we could produce a reliable referenced summary here----Snowded TALK 23:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This very cautious approach requiring some external summary is not dictated by WP policy. In such a situation, primary sources can be cited to represent various views. There is no implied endorsement of any of these views, but only statements like " ‘So-and-so said such-and-such’, see [1]". The concern about such an approach based upon primary sources is that some of the views so-presented may be of minor importance. The justification of their inclusion, lacking a secondary source, is that these views are published in reputable sources, and that publication implies some vetting by either peer review, or by the referees selected by the publisher. It seems to me that WP is better served by mentioning such reliable sources than by sitting on its duff waiting for years for some outside encyclopedia to get current or to become more inclusive. Brews ohare (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You argued something similar on a policy board and it was rejected.  In fact you were clearly told that secondary sources are required for wikipedia not editors stringing together quotations from primary sources they think are appropriate. ----Snowded TALK 20:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this subject did come up, but your summary of the discussion is baloney. Brews ohare (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats what you think of anyone who disagrees with you Brews.   An Arbcom subject matter ban, multiple failed RfCs and more recently multiple failed attempts to change policy have not convinced you otherwise.  I've run our of patience for dealing with your obduracy ----Snowded TALK 10:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The following may help to raise this exchange from the abysmal level where you place it: the discussion you mention is found here as a proposal to amplify the policy regarding primary sources. In contrast to your summary that "you were clearly told that secondary sources are required for Wikipedia", the conclusion was that WP:Primary already clearly supported the the proposal, and that changes in policy were not necessary. Masem's position was "If it's not broke, don't fix it",  and he required that diffs be presented to show that problems with applying WP:Primary were sufficiently serious that a modification was needed. As that burden of proof seemed to me to be an invitation to prolonged and fruitless debate, I did not pursue making WP:Primary more emphatic on this point, where numerous parties felt the existing policy was already clear enough. Brews ohare (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And a simple reading of that exchange shows you trying to use policy to win a content argument (again).  Sorry Brews but you have had so many 'prolonged and fruitless' debates with so many different editors (the latest on Dilemma of Determinism) that the pattern of disruptive (albeit probably well intentioned) behaviour is all too clear.  If you can point to a single diff where other editors have supported one of your positions in any dispute I'd be interested to see it ----Snowded TALK 19:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: AGF hard at work, eh Snowded? Keep trying to make WP a cesspool. Brews ohare (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Facts hurt Brews, if you can answer my question I'll consider withdrawal.  AGF is not required in the face of continued un-rectified intransigence, its something you need to earn  ----Snowded TALK 00:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions - section 

message: Imma doubting. I mean, you could say a social network is a "complex adaptive system", or you could say that the guy that said that should get his head out of his/her ass, and some people participating in the social network actually did some thinking.88.159.79.223 (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of criticism? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Complex adaptive system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207162407/http://www.foresight.gov.uk/OurWork/CompletedProjects/IIS/Docs/ComplexityandEmergentBehaviour.asp to http://www.foresight.gov.uk/OurWork/CompletedProjects/IIS/Docs/ComplexityandEmergentBehaviour.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105183805/http://www.openabm.org/site/ to http://www.openabm.org/site/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Complex adaptive system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905170544/http://www.uow.edu.au/~kd21/uploads/Diment-complexity.pdf to http://www.uow.edu.au/~kd21/uploads/Diment-complexity.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first part of the characteristics section doesn't actually refer to CAS, it's just for complex systems. This should be adjusted. TPen94 (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics Section