One of the most memorable moments when this whirlwind of perceived compartmentalization started to feel appeased—at least to the extent that it could be—was learning about complexity science: an emerging field of study with an inquisitive eye on what are called complex adaptive systems. These are defined as anything containing “A large collection of components ... [that] spontaneously self-organize to exhibit non-trivial global structures and behaviors at larger scales, often without external intervention, central authorities or leaders. The properties of the collection may not be understood or predicted from the full knowledge of its constituents alone” (De Domenico and Sayama). As you can imagine, this is a rather broad area of study—but this very prevalence is precisely what makes it so captivating. Complex adaptive systems are everywhere.

I, and certainly many others, find complexity science to be important because of its many applications throughout a wide array of disciplines in our entropic world. But I also believe it to be important because of the radical mindset shift that comes with adopting it in one's own way of thinking. Of course, it's hard to pinpoint exactly what complexity is; but that doesn't mean there aren't general trends that can be used to describe what is being studied. Plenty of work has been done to better understand the phenomena that entail it. One of the primary principles that drive the study of complexity is the concept of emergence: an older concept, going as far back as Aristotle, but nonetheless key. A good description of emergence adapted to complexity science by Geoffrey West in his book Scale goes as follows:

“A universal characteristic of a complex system is that the whole is greater than, and often significantly different from, the simple linear sum of its parts. In many instances, the whole seems to take on a life of its own, almost dissociated from the specific characteristics of its individual building blocks. Furthermore, even if we understood how the individual constituents, whether cells, ants, or people, interact with one another, predicting the systemic behaviour of the resulting whole is not usually possible.” (p. 23)

As I stated, these aren't new ideas. In fact, the same disciplines that have been able to borrow concepts from complexity science have always had some aspects of complexity baked into them; it could even be argued that the emergence of complexity science is the very phenomenon that complexity scientists set out to better understand in the first place. As West makes sure to note, “A natural outcome has been the emergence of an integrated systemic transdisciplinary approach involving a broad spectrum of techniques and concepts derived from diverse areas of science ranging from biology, economics, and physics to computer science, engineering and the socioeconomic sciences” (p. 24). Take West's example of physics—one of the (many) revolutionary findings in the past century of the field revolves around ideas that would have seemed flat-out absurd in the Newtonian era: that, at its most fundamental levels, reality appears to behave probabilistically. I am referring to the study of quantum mechanics. With the knowledge we've gained from it, we've crafted the most accurately tested theory in all of humankind's history: the Standard Model.

This theory is fascinatingly tied to the idea of quantum fields interacting with one another at Planck scale, where particles can seemingly oscillate in & out of existence from the very energy present in the vacuum of spacetime itself. Though the Standard Model is not by any means a complete theory of everything (as it does not explain observations around dark matter, dark energy, the force of gravity, and more) its most fascinating attribute is its relative simplicity. Being able to reduce so much of reality into quarks, leptons, forces, and the Higgs Boson is an incredible feat. I believe this is where complexity science begins to showcase its true value: if we can successfully explain the smallest scales of reality as the interactions between a relatively small number of fundamental particles and forces, how do we explain the phenomenological truth of the extraordinarily complex universe each one of us is experiencing today?

As I mentioned earlier, a radical mindset shift comes with truly understanding and adopting the framework of complexity in everyday life. This manifests in a number of ways, one of which being recognizing the importance of diversity within complex adaptive systems. As Zimmerman et al. state, “Diversity is necessary for the sustainability of [complex adaptive systems]. Diversity is a source of information or novelty” (6). Diversity in any given complex adaptive system is integral to its development as it allows for more processes of iteration to occur. Some obvious parallels lie in the diversity of the complex interactions that have been occurring for the past few billion years on Earth. Complex processes have been instrumental to the planet and its overall development, for better (e.g. allowing for life to flourish) or for worse (e.g. paving the way to mass extinctions). This includes—but is most definitely not limited to—the geomagnetic field, plate tectonics, the evolution of photosynthesis, and climate. These processes are simply necessary to explain where the planet at large is today.

Manifestly, diversity plays an equally important role at smaller scales as well. For example, our bodies are a complex adaptive system made of even smaller complex adaptive systems themselves: from the microbiota in our guts, to the behaviour of cells in our cardiovascular systems, to the method by which neurons form connections in our brain. At both of the aforementioned scales, if just one of these systems was missing—or merely developed differently—it's likely that we wouldn't be able to recognize the Earth, or ourselves, as we do today. Furthermore, it is importantly pointed out that “A decrease in diversity reduces the potential for future adaptations” (Zimmerman et al., p. 6). When a system is facing a lack of diversity, the overall chance that new iterations will occur simply decreases. At an intuitive level it is easy to grasp that if there is nothing for a complex adaptive system to adapt to, its capacity for innovation is significantly reduced. Naturally, what would follow is a state of stagnation in which the probability of any noteworthy developments occurring is low.

Another way in which adopting a complexity framework enriches our way of understanding the world is through its intrinsic emphasis on paradoxes. Various concepts in complexity science require being able to reconcile the importance of one aspect with the equal importance of another, sometimes even concepts that may seem incompatible. One might be tempted to think this is problematic, but in all actuality, it's not. As Zimmerman et al. state, the nature of complex systems is paradoxical: “As you study the world through a complexity lens you will be continually confronted with 'both-and' rather than 'either-or' thinking. The paradoxes of complexity are that both sides of many apparent contradictions are true” (p. 12). To me, this has rather profound philosophical ramifications. One way this can be understood is through the importance of adopting a more dialectical approach when trying to understand any number of issues. This can be seen in the scientific sphere a couple of different ways: by analyzing data from both micro and macro-style analyses, and in the form of peer-reviewing. There is a good reason why multiple teams of scientists from varying backgrounds have to approach the same issues using their own methodologies before we can make the claim that we understand something.

This skill of being able to recognize paradoxes places a great deal of importance on the role of critical thinking, as approaching issues from a binary standpoint will only serve one to forego potentially key information. In other words, focusing solely on one perspective or another is not adequate for achieving a more complete understanding, or deducing truth. This is the heart of many fallacies and biases, and the heart of the scientific method is getting past these barriers to knowledge. Once one can not only recognize that these paradoxes exist, but that they can in fact co-exist, can one begin to truly understand and reconcile previously conflicting ideas and points of view. Freeing ourselves from a reductive way of thinking opens so many doors—and viewing the world from the framework of complexity science helps us with that.

The final way I will put forth that complexity can shift our understanding of the world is through the importance of a concept that already permeates a variety of fields in different ways: the concept of interrelationality. As West states, “The study of complex systems has taught us to be wary of naively breaking the system down into independently acting component parts” (p. 24). Interrelationality suggests that instead of examining the individual components of a given system, we should look at the relationships between those components—and that the interplay between them can teach us more than isolating its individual pieces ever could. Sometimes this concept is explored in a more empirical way, such as in ecology where understanding is primarily derived from learning about the relationships between Earth's complex systems (i.e. how they affect and are affected by one another). Other times, this concept is explored in more theoretical ways: for example, within the field of philosophy persists an age-old debate between the concepts of individualism and collectivism. This back-and-forth is typically framed as 'Western' and 'Eastern' views respectfully fighting it out, but no conclusive answer has been put forth. And with strong arguments on both sides, there is no end in sight.

But applying knowledge from the framework of complexity science, there's no reason that both can't be true to differing extents—even if they are fundamentally different ways of viewing the world. As put by Zimmerman et al., “The systemic nature of a [complex adaptive system] implies interdependence yet each of the elements which are interdependent are able to act independently. Interdependence and independence co-exist” (p. 12). It appears that we often limit ourselves intellectually by trying to find one simple explanation to some extremely complex problems, but at what cost? Many of us gloss over important concepts because they don't fit our pre-existing notions of truth, and some go as far as to engage in primitive arguments attempting to 'defeat the other side' for purely egoic reasons. There needs to be room for contradictions when answers can't be reduced to a single value, and even more muddying, begin correlating with different values altogether.

In case it isn't apparent by now, modern society is ultimately a product of various complex adaptive systems interacting throughout time. So where can we start to see the importance of applying knowledge gained from complexity science in the real world? Joe Brewer, a complexity researcher and cognitive scientist, states “Every major challenge in the world today is deeply and profoundly cultural — and cultural systems are always complex. They are comprised of many interacting parts with critical interdependencies that are not reducible to usefully meaningful modular parts” (para. 5). Viewing society as a complex adaptive system, combined with the understanding that complex adaptive systems can undergo stagnant periods of reduced diversity, I argue that human society at large is facing this very issue. There's a lack of diversity in the power structures that run our institutions; a lack of diversity in political organizations that are supposed to represent us in government; a lack of diversity in sources that provide us with the information we use to determine our truths; an increasing lack of biodiversity as we quell the natural world around us; so on and so forth.

These are all complex topics in their own right, but as West asserts, “We urgently need a science of complex adaptive systems to address the host of extraordinarily challenging societal problems we face” (p. 20). Unfortunately, situations like the one we find ourselves in are ripe for bad actors to take advantage of. Whether it's authoritarian regimes, the spread of misinformation, or economic inequality, challenges continue to arise and there will always be those who see it as an opportunity to gain an advantage over others. We need to bridge the gap between complexity science and how we deal with the increasing amount of problems we face not only as a species, but within our species. Complexity science is by definition intertwined with everything and everyone; it's about time we use that fact to our advantage by applying the knowledge we have gained from it.