on complexity  ^{[active draft]  #tbc}

a critique, of the almost unconditionally binary perspective of complexity vs simplicity, observed playing out in certain academic conversations #rewrite (less hype, more specificity)

---

beginnings

Consider – not all complexity is equal :

1. Innate complexity – territory (and any minimally-viable circumstantially sufficient abstraction)
2. Contrived complexity – all other abstraction (and apparent human secretion/ sustenance/ fetish)

Consider too – not all simplicity is equal :

1. Simpler doesn’t mean ‘anything goes’
2. Remember, if a simple explanation doesn’t fit a circumstance or situation, it isn’t an explanation at all

Consider then, that the simplest explanation is the one which is :

1. Circumstantially sufficient;
2. With least redundant conceptual baggage

—conceptual baggage?!

---

conceptual baggage

Consider :

1. A general term, and;
2. Respective domain-specific term

Domain- specific terms (2) bundle context, which may be irrelevant, distract, mislead, or obscure; may be unknown; might not be synchronised equally between peers. This bundled context is conceptual baggage.

Where possible, prefer general terms; and be explicit about which related concepts are included.

Of course, situationally, the domain specific term might be the simplest means to communicate to another specialist, for example ¹.

But also consider this, every domain-specialism which does not routinely translate it’s concepts back to general form, and reconcile suitability and correctness, likely masks hidden assumptions which distract, mislead, or obscure.

---

history

But, why can’t a thing ‘simply be complex’?!

And of course, it might!

But really, take pause and imagine: over the course of our history, how it seemed and felt, right before every apparent ‘intractably-complex phenomena’ fell – to soul-awakening beauty – of exactly the right minimally-viable, circumstantially sufficient kind (of complexity) – the simplest explanation.

---

waxy musings

Simple (minimally-viable, circumstantially sufficient) explanations are a gift from the universe, to save us from ourselves.

We are the {redundant-contriving; blockade-our-own-path; excrete-in-our-own-yard} ape.

And, in honesty, simple explanations :

1. Are all that we really have;
2. Are the hope that we deserve, and;
3. Over-time, all that we ever needed, anyway

Now, if only we paced ourselves along the way…

---

inherent constraints

In seriousness. I do wonder what the ‘complex systems’ cognition folks think happens to the ‘intractably complex system’ when it must, necessarily, interact with, the ‘other stuff’ :

1. Biological (and simpler pre-biological) structures, and respective behaviours

2. The directly observable phenomena of introspection and metacognition, including thoughts, and emotions; which everybody uses to drive this thing around all day; comply with laws; survive reality; etc

3. Is it more likely that ’that thing we call evolution’ :

   1. Did similar incrementally simple stuff, or;
   2. Did something so dissimilar that we never talk of the similar stuff in this context EVER AGAIN

I’m not classically trained, obviously, tho I do wonder.

---

finally

I think the point, is that circumstantially: not every detail matters.

The trick is finding the right ones to ignore, at the right time. & Finding the right way to arrange the important ones.

And at the end of the day, we ought to remember that, given our propensity to contrive, any given task might be far more complex to resolve, than it’s result is to understand.