Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Must a complex system be adaptive to be of interest in the field of complexity? Give an example to support your answer.

Short Answer

Expert verified

Non-adaptive complex systems are not of interest in the study of complexity.

Step by step solution

Achieve better grades quicker with Premium

  • Unlimited AI interaction
  • Study offline
  • Say goodbye to ads
  • Export flashcards

Over 22 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

01

Define Complexity

A system is roughly described as complex if it is made up of a large number of interconnected elements with emergent global dynamics that are qualitatively distinct from the dynamics of each individual component.

02

Explanation

Yes, since a non-adaptive system would continue to respond in the same way after receiving input information (a change in the environment). Its "capacity to stay alive" would be determined purely by the consistency of the environment. This type of system will very probably be terminated if the environment changes. Examining the "balance" of the ball in a labile equilibrium, which is actually no balance at all because any disturbance in the ball will tip it off, rendering it completely uninteresting. A stable equilibrium, on the other hand (a basic example of an adaptive system), would have many additional traits that would be more fascinating to investigate.

Therefore, Yes, in the study of complexity, non-adaptive complex systems are not of interest.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

For experimental evidence, particularly of previously unobserved phenomena, to be taken seriously it must be reproducible or of sufficiently high quality that a single observation is meaningful. Supernovais not reproducible. How do we know observations of it were valid? The fifth force is not broadly accepted. Is this due to lack of reproducibility or poor-quality experiments (or both)? Discuss why forefront experiments are more subject to observational problems than those involving established phenomena.

(a) A particle and its antiparticle are at rest relative to an observer and annihilate (completely destroying both masses), creating two\({\rm{\gamma }}\)rays of equal energy. What is the characteristic\({\rm{\gamma }}\)-ray energy you would look for if searching for evidence of proton-antiproton annihilation? (The fact that such radiation is rarely observed is evidence that there is very little antimatter in the universe.) (b) How does this compare with the\({\rm{0}}{\rm{.511 MeV}}\)energy associated with electron-positron annihilation?

Is the event horizon of a black hole the actual physical surface of the object?

Suppose black holes radiate their mass away and the lifetime of a black hole created by a supernova is about \({\rm{1}}{{\rm{0}}^{{\rm{67}}}}\)years. How does this lifetime compare with the accepted age of the universe? Is it surprising that we do not observe the predicted characteristic radiation?

Question: If the universe is infinite, does it have a center? Discuss.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Physics Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free