On the limits of bottom-up computer simulation: towards a nonlinear modeling culture

Abstract

1In the complexity and simulation communities there is growing support for the use of bottom-up computer-based simulation in the analysis of complex systems. The presumption is that because these models are more complex than their linear predecessors they must be more suited to the modeling of systems that appear, superficially at least, to be (compositionally and dynamically) complex. Indeed the apparent ability of such models to allow the emergence of collective phenomena from quite simple underlying rules is very compelling. But does this 'evidence' alone 'prove' that nonlinear bottom-up models are superior to simpler linear models when considering complex systems behavior? Philosophical explorations concerning the efficacy of models, whether they be formal scientific models or our personal worldviews, has been a popular pastime for many philosophers, particularly philosophers of science. This paper offers yet another critique of modeling that uses the results and observations of nonlinear mathematics and bottom-up simulation themselves to develop a modeling paradigm that is significantly broader than the traditional model-focused paradigm. In this broader view of modeling we are encouraged to concern ourselves more with the modeling process rather than the (computer) model itself and embrace a nonlinear modeling culture. This emerging view of modeling also counteracts the growing preoccupation with nonlinear models over linear models.

Linking Complexity and Sustainability Theories: Implications for Modeling Sustainability Transitions

“…This extends agent-based modeling beyond computer-based modeling of rule-based agents within systems to the inclusion of real-world agents, who are more adept in understanding and negotiating real-world complexities due to their lived experience and learning [33].…”

“…This is termed "degeneracy" in quantum theory [32], i.e., degenerate system states lead to the same overall systems behaviors. In modeling terms this is referred to as "equifinality" [33] that is; equifinal models lead to the same system behavior and identity.…”

“…Moreover, in respect of integration, both quantitative (e.g., statistics, data) and qualitative information (e.g., expert opinion, case studies and narrative analyses) must be integrated in modeling frameworks (e.g., such as behavioral analyses) [18,33,61]. In this respect, probabilistic modeling frameworks are required that can articulate (and visualize) how causalities (i.e., including flows, influences, etc.)…”

When Modeling Social Systems, Models ≠ the Modeled: Reacting to Wolfram's A New Kind of Science

“…If Wolfram and Casti are to be believed, economics and most of social science would acquire new meaning, for theory could be actually tested before some governmental official (well-intentioned or not) puts it into practice. All this despite some commentators' warnings concerning the deep theoretical limitations associated with such approaches (see, e.g., Oreskes et al, 1994;Cilliers, 2000a;Richardson, 2002bRichardson, , 2002c. If only matters were so straightforward.…”

The hegemony of the physical sciences: an exploration in complexity thinking

“…For a more in-depth discussion of the limitations of bottom-up simulation, please refer to Richardson[38].…”