« October 2006 | Main | December 2006 »

## November 25, 2006

### Unreasonable effectiveness (part 3)

A little more than twenty years after Hamming's essay, the computer scientist Bernard Chazelle penned an essay on the importance of the **algorithm**, in which he offers his own perspective on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.

Mathematics shines in domains replete with symmetry, regularity, periodicity -- things often missing in the life and social sciences. Contrast a crystal structure (grist for algebra's mill) with the World Wide Web (cannon fodder for algorithms). No math formula will ever model whole biological organisms, economies, ecologies, or large, live networks.

Perhaps this, in fact, is what Hamming meant by saying that much of physics is logically deducible, that the symmetries, regularities, and periodicities of physical nature constrain it in such strong ways that mathematics alone (and not something more powerful) can accurately capture its structure. But, complex systems like organisms, economies and engineered systems don't have to, and certainly don't seem to, respect those constraints. Yet, even these things exhibit patterns and regularities that we can study.

Clearly, my perspective matches Chazelle's, that algorithms offer a better path toward understanding complexity than the mathematics of physics. Or, to put it another way, that *complexity is inherently algorithmic*. As an example of this kind of inherent complexity through algorithms, Chazelle cites Craig Reynolds' **boids** model. Boids is one of the canonical simulations of "artificial life"; in this particular simulation, a trio of simple algorithmic rules produce surprisingly realistic flocking / herding behavior when followed by a group of "autonomous" agents [1]. There are several other surprisingly effective algorithmic models of complex behavior (as I mentioned before, cellular automata are perhaps the most successful), but they all exist in isolation, as models of disconnected phenomenon.

So, I think one of the grand challenges for a science of complexity will be to develop a way to collect the results of these isolated models into a coherent framework. Just as we have powerful tools for working with a wide range of differential-equation models, we need similar tools for working with competitive agent-based models, evolutionary models, etc. That is, we would like to be able to write down the model in an abstract form, and then draw strong, testable conclusions about it, without simulating it. For example, imagine being able to write down Reynolds' three boids rules and deriving the observed flocking behavior before coding them up [2]. To me, that would prove that the algorithm is unreasonably effective at capturing complexity. Until then, it's just a dream.

Note: See also part 1 and part 2 of this series of posts.

[1] This citation is particularly amusing to me considering that most computer scientists seem to be completely unaware of the fields of complex systems and artificial life. This is, perhaps, attributable to computer science's roots in engineering and logic, rather than in studying the natural world.

[2] It's true that problems of intractability (P vs NP) and undecidability lurk behind these questions, but analogous questions lurk behind much of mathematics (Thank you, Godel). For most practical situations, mathematics has sidestepped these questions. For most practical situations (where here I'm thinking more of modeling the natural world), can we also sidestep them for algorithms?

posted November 25, 2006 01:19 PM in Things to Read | permalink | Comments (0)

## November 24, 2006

### Unreasonable effectiveness (part 2)

In keeping with the theme [1], twenty years after Wigner's essay on The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, Richard Hamming (who has graced this blog previously) wrote a piece by the same name for The American Mathematical Monthly (**87** (2), 1980). Hamming takes issue with Wigner's essay, suggesting that the physicist has dodged the central question of **why** mathematics has been so effective. In Hamming's piece, he offers a few new thoughts on the matter: primarily, he suggests, mathematics has been successful in physics because much of it is logically deducible, and that we often change mathematics (i.e., we change our assumptions or our framework) to fit the reality we wish to describe. His conclusion, however, puts the matter best.

From all of this I am forced to conclude both that mathematics is unreasonably effective and that all of the explanations I have given when added together simply are not enough to explain what I set out to account for. I think that we -- meaning you, mainly -- must continue to try to explain why the logical side of science -- meaning mathematics, mainly -- is the proper tool for exploring the universe as we perceive it at present. I suspect that my explanations are hardly as good as those of the early Greeks, who said for the material side of the question that the nature of the universe is earth, fire, water, and air. The logical side of the nature of the universe requires further exploration.

Hamming, it seems, has dodged the question as well. But, Hamming's point that we have changed mathematics to suit our needs is important. Let's return to the idea that computer science and the algorithm offer a path toward capturing the regularity of complex systems, e.g., social and biological ones. Historically, we've demanded that algorithms yield guarantees on their results, and that they don't take too long to return them. For example, we want to know that our sorting algorithm will actually sort a list of numbers, and that it will do it in the time I allow. Essentially, our formalisms and methods of analysis in computer science have been driven by engineering needs, and our entire field reflects that bias.

But, if we want to use algorithms to accurately model complex systems, it stands to reason that we should orient ourselves toward constraints that are more suitable for the kinds of behaviors those systems exhibit. In mathematics, it's relatively easy to write down an intractable system of equations; similarly, it's easy to write down an algorithm who's behavior is impossible to predict. The trick, it seems, will be to develop simple algorithmic formalisms for modeling complex systems that we can analyze and understand in much the same way that we do for mathematical equations.

I don't believe that one set of formalisms will be suitable for all complex systems, but perhaps biological systems are consistent enough that we could use one set for them, and perhaps another for social systems. For instance, biological systems are all driven by metabolic needs, and by a need to maintain structure in the face of degradation. Similarly, social systems are driven by, at least, competitive forces and asymmetries in knowledge. These are needs that things like sorting algorithms have no concept of.

Note: See also part 1 and part 3 of this series of posts.

[1] A common theme, it seems. What topic wouldn't be complete without its own wikipedia article?

posted November 24, 2006 12:21 PM in Things to Read | permalink | Comments (2)

## November 23, 2006

### Unreasonable effectiveness (part 1)

Einstein apparently once remarked that "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." In a famous paper in *Pure Mathematics* (**13** (1), 1960), the physicist Eugene Wigner (Nobel in 1963 for atomic theory) discussed "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". The essay is not too long (for an academic piece), but I think this example of the the application of mathematics gives the best taste of what Wigner is trying to point out.

The second example is that of ordinary, elementary quantum mechanics. This originated when Max Born noticed that some rules of computation, given by Heisenberg, were formally identical with the rules of computation with matrices, established a long time before by mathematicians. Born, Jordan, and Heisenberg then proposed to replace by matrices the position and momentum variables of the equations of classical mechanics. They applied the rules of matrix mechanics to a few highly idealized problems and the results were quite satisfactory.

However, there was, at that time, no rational evidence that their matrix mechanics would prove correct under more realistic conditions. Indeed, they say "if the mechanics as here proposed should already be correct in its essential traits." As a matter of fact, the first application of their mechanics to a realistic problem, that of the hydrogen atom, was given several months later, by Pauli. This application gave results in agreement with experience. This was satisfactory but still understandable because Heisenberg's rules of calculation were abstracted from problems which included the old theory of the hydrogen atom.

The miracle occurred only when matrix mechanics, or a mathematically equivalent theory, was applied to problems for which Heisenberg's calculating rules were meaningless. Heisenberg's rules presupposed that the classical equations of motion had solutions with certain periodicity properties; and the equations of motion of the two electrons of the helium atom, or of the even greater number of electrons of heavier atoms, simply do not have these properties, so that Heisenberg's rules cannot be applied to these cases.

Nevertheless, the calculation of the lowest energy level of helium, as carried out a few months ago by Kinoshita at Cornell and by Bazley at the Bureau of Standards, agrees with the experimental data within the accuracy of the observations, which is one part in ten million. Surely in this case we "got something out" of the equations that we did not put in.

As someone (apparently) involved in the construction of "a physics of complex systems", I have to wonder whether mathematics is still unreasonably effective at capturing these kind of inherent patterns in nature. Formally, the kind of mathematics that physics has historically used is equivalent to a memoryless computational machine (if there *is* some kind of memory, it has to be explicitly encoded into the current state); but, the algorithm is a more general form of computation that can express ideas that are significantly more complex, at least partially because it inherently utilizes history. This suggests to me that a physics of complex systems will be intimately connected to the mechanics of computation itself, and that select tools from computer science may ultimately let us express the structure and behavior of complex, e.g., social and biological, systems more effectively than the mathematics used by physics.

One difficulty in this endeavor, of course, is that the mathematics of physics is already well-developed, while the algorithms of complex systems are not. There have been some wonderful successes with algorithms already, e.g., cellular automata, but it seems to me that there's a significant amount of cultural inertia here, perhaps at least partially because there are so many more physicists than computer scientists working on complex systems.

Note: See also part 2 and part 3 of this series of posts.

posted November 23, 2006 11:31 AM in Things to Read | permalink | Comments (2)

## November 14, 2006

### Blog silence...

will continue for a little while longer. I'm in the process of moving both my worldly posessions to Santa Fe, and my virtual territory to the Santa Fe Institute, where I start work after Thanksgiving. Once I've set up shop there, I expect there will be some small changes in how I run this blog. For instance, I'll likely incorporate more SFI-related news (talks, working papers, etc.), and talk a bit more about how computer science and complexity science can relate to each other. SFI doesn't quite have the same server system for running blogs as my current location, so I may move this blog to an independent location, or I may keep it here - haven't decided yet.

In the meantime, my new Web location will be http://www.santafe.edu/~aaronc.

posted November 14, 2006 02:50 PM in Blog Maintenance | permalink | Comments (0)

## November 06, 2006

### Vote today.

If you live in the US and have not already voted (I voted early, and it was a snap), please please do so today.

Having enjoyed many other quotations by Aldous Huxley, I thought he might have one relevant to today's election. Here's the best I could find: "The most shocking fact about war is that its victims and its instruments are individual human beings, and that these individual beings are condemned by the monstrous conventions of politics to murder or be murdered in quarrels not their own."

posted November 6, 2006 10:28 PM in Political Wonk | permalink | Comments (0)