Definition:
Synchronisation is a dynamic process in complex systems in which the temporal or spatial patterns of two or more entities or subsystems are coordinated through interactions. This process takes place within resonant spaces, which can be understood as contexts or fields in which reciprocal, transformative relationships are possible. Synchronisation leads to a coherent or coordinated activity that can be understood both as an emergent phenomenon and as an order-creating mechanism. It manifests itself at different levels of reality, from quantum physics to social systems, and can be both deterministic and probabilistic. Synchronisation has a complex relationship with entropy in that it creates order locally, while globally it can contribute to maintaining or increasing the overall entropy. The resonant spaces in which synchronisation occurs can themselves be seen as emergent structures that are created and maintained by synchronisation processes, creating a recursive relationship between synchronisation and its context.
Core Elements of this Definition:
- Dynamic process: Emphasises the temporal and changing nature of synchronisation, in line with the concept of ‘diachronic emergence’ by Humphreys (2016) [1].
- Complex systems: Refers to the context in which synchronisation typically occurs and takes into account the complexity science perspective (Mitchell, 2009) [2].
- Temporal or spatial patterns: Extends the concept beyond purely temporal synchronisation to include spatial coordination.
- Interactions: Emphasises the causal nature of synchronisation, in line with Ellis’ (2012) concept of “causal emergence” [3].
- Coherent or coordinated activity: Describes the outcome of synchronisation, which can be both quantitative and qualitative.
- Emergent phenomenon and order-creating mechanism: Associates synchronisation with the concept of emergence while acknowledging its role in creating order.
- Different levels of reality: Takes into account the ‘integrative pluralism’ of Mitchell (2003) [4] and recognises the scale-independence of the concept.
- Deterministic and probabilistic: Integrates different philosophical perspectives on causality and determinism.
- Complex relationship to entropy: Addresses the apparent tension between synchronisation as an order-creating process and the second law of thermodynamics.
- Resonant spaces: The integration of this concept adds a contextual and relational dimension to the understanding of synchronisation. It emphasises that synchronisation does not take place in a vacuum, but in specific ‘spaces’ or contexts that enable certain types of relationships and interactions.
- Reciprocal, transformative relationships: This aspect, stemming from Rosa’s concept of resonance, emphasises that synchronisation is not just a mechanical alignment but also involves transformative potentials [4].
- Recursive relationship: The idea that resonance spaces can be both a condition and a result of synchronisation processes adds an additional layer of complexity to the definition. This is in line with theories of self-organisation and autopoiesis as developed by Maturana and Varela (1980) [5].
Discussion:
- Synchronisation as a Fundamental Principle:
Synchronisation is regarded here as a fundamental principle in many natural and artificial systems. Strogatz (2003) defines synchronisation as the ‘adjustment of rhythms of oscillating objects due to their weak interaction’ [6]. This principle can be observed in various areas, from quantum physics to social systems.
- Emergence und Synchronisation:
Emergence refers to the appearance of new properties or structures in complex systems that cannot be derived directly from the properties of the individual components. Bar-Yam (1997) describes emergence as the ‘emergence of collective behaviour from microscopic components’ [7].
The connection between synchronisation and emergence can be observed in various systems:
a) In biological systems: Camazine et al. (2003) show how synchronisation in swarms or colonies leads to emergent behaviours [8].
b) In neuronal networks: Varela et al. (2001) argue that synchronised neuronal activity contributes to the emergence of consciousness [9].
c) In social systems: Sawyer (2005) discusses how synchronised interactions in groups can lead to emergent social phenomena [10].
The observation that synchronisation can be both a cause and a target of emergence is remarkable. This points to a possible feedback mechanism in which emergent properties can in turn influence synchronisation at lower levels.
- Entropy and Synchronisation:
Entropy, a central concept in thermodynamics and information theory, describes the degree of disorder or randomness in a system. Shannon (1948) defined entropy in the context of information theory as a measure of the uncertainty of a message [11].
Entropy can be seen as an ‘antipode process’ to synchronisation and can be discussed in various contexts:
a) In physical systems: Prigogine and Stengers (1984) show how order (synchronisation) can emerge from chaos (high entropy) in dissipative systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium [12].
b) In information systems: Tononi et al. (1994) argue that the balance between integration (synchronisation) and segregation (entropy) in neural systems is optimal for information processing [13].
c) In social systems: Luhmann (1984) describes how social systems reduce complexity (entropy) in order to create order (synchronisation) [14].
- Synthesis:
The consideration of synchronisation, emergence and entropy as interconnected concepts provides a powerful framework for understanding complex systems:
- Synchronisation can be understood as an order-creating process that leads to the emergence of new properties.
- Emergence can be seen both as a result of synchronisation and as a driver for further synchronisation processes.
- Entropy can be seen as an opposing force to synchronisation, which is, however, necessary in certain cases to enable new forms of order.
This perspective opens up the following research questions:
- How can the optimal balance between synchronisation and entropy in different systems be quantified?
- What is the role of feedback mechanisms between emergent properties and synchronisation processes at lower levels?
- How can these concepts be used to make predictions about the behaviour of complex systems?
In summary, these considerations on synchronisation, emergence and entropy provide a conceptual tool for the analysis of complex systems. This perspective could lead to new insights in various fields, from physics to biology and the social sciences.
Critical aspects:
- Measurability and Quantification:
Measurability is a central problem. The quantification of emergence is particularly challenging because emergent properties are often qualitative and not easily translatable into quantitative measures. Bedau (1997) discusses the difficulties in defining and measuring emergence in complex systems [15]. - Scale Dependence:
The concepts of synchronisation, entropy and emergence can act differently at different levels of a system. What appears as emergence at one level may be perceived as simple causality at another. Mitchell (2009) emphasises the importance of scale dependence in complex systems [2]. - Context Dependence:
The relationships between these concepts can be highly context-dependent. What is considered synchronisation in one system could be interpreted as coincidence in another. Goldstein (1999) discusses the context dependence of emergent phenomena [16]. - Causality and Determinismus:
The question of causality in complex systems is often difficult to answer. Is synchronisation the cause or the result of emergence? How does this relate to entropy? Fromm (2005) examines the challenges of determining causality in complex adaptive systems [17]. - Theoretical Incoherence:
The concepts originate from different scientific disciplines and have different theoretical foundations. Entropy has its roots in thermodynamics, while emergence is often discussed in systems theory. The integration of these concepts could lead to theoretical incoherence. Frigg and Werndl (2011) discuss the challenges of integrating different entropy concepts [18]. - Reductionism vs. Holism:
Synthesising these concepts may require a balancing act between reductionist and holistic approaches. While entropy is often viewed reductionistically, emergence is typically understood holistically. Wimsatt (2006) discusses the tensions between reductionism and emergence [19]. - Dynamic Complexity:
In highly complex, dynamic systems, the relationships between synchronisation, entropy and emergence can be non-linear and difficult to predict. This complicates the development of a unified theoretical framework. Gros (2015) investigates the challenges of modelling complex dynamical systems [20]. - Interdisziplinary Barriers:
The integration of these concepts requires a highly interdisciplinary approach, which often encounters institutional and conceptual barriers in practice. Klein (1990) discusses the challenges of interdisciplinary research [21]. - Philosophical Foundations:
The ontological and epistemological assumptions underlying these concepts may differ. A synthesis would have to address these philosophical differences. Bunge (2003) analyses the philosophical foundations of emergence and reductionism [22]. - Practical Applicability:
Even if a theoretical synthesis were possible, the question of its practical applicability and usefulness for empirical research remains. Craver and Bechtel (2007) discuss the challenges of applying multilevel mechanisms in science [23].
These critical points illustrate the complexity and challenges involved in attempting a comprehensive synthesis of synchronisation, entropy and emergence. They emphasise the need for a careful, nuanced and interdisciplinary approach to this topic.
Philosophical Synthesis:
A synthesis of the philosophical differences between the concepts of synchronisation, entropy and emergence is indeed a complex challenge. Let us look at the most important philosophical aspects.
- Ontological Questions:
The ontological foundations of these concepts differ considerably:
- Synchronisation is often understood as a process or state that occurs in physical systems.
- In classical thermodynamics, entropy is regarded as a property of systems, while in information theory it is seen as a measure of information content.
- Emergence is often discussed as an ontological category sui generis that cannot be reduced to the properties of the basic elements.
A possible synthesis could be to consider all three concepts as aspects of a more comprehensive ontological framework. Bunge (2003) proposes an ‘emergentist materialism’ that integrates both reductionist and emergentist perspectives [22]. In this framework, synchronisation and entropy could be understood as basic processes that lead to emergent phenomena under certain conditions.
- Epistemological Questions:
The epistemological approaches to analysing these concepts vary:
- Synchronisation is often investigated using quantitative models and experimental observations.
- Entropy is defined mathematically in physics, whereas in other fields it is interpreted more qualitatively.
- Emergence is often studied through qualitative descriptions and case studies, although there are also attempts to quantify it.
An epistemological synthesis could follow a pluralistic approach, as proposed by Mitchell (2003) [4]. This would recognise that different levels of explanation and methods are appropriate for different aspects of complex systems.
- Causality and Determinism:
The concepts imply different views on causality:
- Synchronisation often implies some kind of causality between interacting elements.
- Entropy is treated deterministically in classical thermodynamics, while it is probabilistic in statistical mechanics.
- Emergence often challenges traditional notions of causality by introducing downward causality or non-linear causality.
A possible synthesis could be based on the concept of ‘causal emergence’, as proposed by Ellis (2012) [3]. This approach integrates different levels of causality and considers both bottom-up and top-down processes.
- Reductionism vs. Holism:
The tension between reductionist and holistic approaches is central:
- Synchronisation and entropy are often treated reductionistically.
- Emergence is typically understood holistically.
A synthesis could build on the concept of ‘integrative pluralism’ by Mitchell (2003) [4]. This approach recognises that both reductionist and holistic perspectives are valuable and need to be integrated into a comprehensive understanding of complex systems.
- Temporality and Dynamics:
The time dimension is treated differently in the concepts:
- Synchronisation often implies a temporal development towards order.
- Entropy is classically associated with an increase in disorder over time.
- Emergence can be understood both synchronously and diachronically.
A synthesis could build on the concept of ‘diachronic emergence’ as proposed by Humphreys (2016) [1]. This approach considers the temporal evolution of complex systems and how different processes interact over time.
- Realism vs. Instrumentalism:
The philosophical positions regarding the ontological status of these concepts vary:
- Synchronisation and entropy are often interpreted realistically.
- The status of emergence is more controversial, with both realist and instrumentalist interpretations.
A possible synthesis could be based on ‘pragmatic realism’, as advocated by Wimsatt (2007) [24]. This approach recognises the practical usefulness of concepts without making rigid ontological commitments.
In summary, a philosophical synthesis of synchronisation, entropy and emergence seems possible if a pluralistic, integrative approach is taken. This approach would recognise the strengths of different philosophical perspectives and attempt to unite them in a coherent framework. Such a synthesis could not only improve our theoretical understanding of these concepts, but also open up new avenues for their practical application in different scientific disciplines.
This definition attempts to integrate the different philosophical perspectives that we have discussed here. It takes into account ontological issues (by treating synchronisation as a real process), epistemological aspects (by allowing for both deterministic and probabilistic approaches), issues of causality and determinism, the tension between reductionism and holism (by considering synchronisation as both an emergent phenomenon and a basic mechanism), and the temporal dimension.
The definition is deliberately broad in order to integrate different scientific and philosophical perspectives and to serve as a starting point for further discussion and clarification in specific contexts.
Literature:
[1] Humphreys, P. (2016). Emergence: A philosophical account. Oxford University Press.
[2] Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. Oxford University Press.
[3] Ellis, G. F. (2012). Top-down causation and emergence: some comments on mechanisms. Interface focus, 2(1), 126-140.
[4] Mitchell, S. D. (2003). Biological complexity and integrative pluralism. Cambridge University Press.
[4] Rosa, H. (2016). Resonanz: Eine Soziologie der Weltbeziehung. Suhrkamp Verlag.
[5] Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. D. Reidel Publishing Company.
[6] Strogatz, S. H. (2003). Sync: The emerging science of spontaneous order. Hyperion.
[7] Bar-Yam, Y. (1997). Dynamics of complex systems. Addison-Wesley.
[8] Camazine, S., Deneubourg, J. L., Franks, N. R., Sneyd, J., Theraulaz, G., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton University Press.
[9] Varela, F., Lachaux, J. P., Rodriguez, E., & Martinerie, J. (2001). The brainweb: phase synchronization and large-scale integration. Nature reviews neuroscience, 2(4), 229-239.
[10] Sawyer, R. K. (2005). Social emergence: Societies as complex systems. Cambridge University Press.
[11] Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell system technical journal, 27(3), 379-423.
[12] Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. Bantam Books.
[13] Tononi, G., Sporns, O., & Edelman, G. M. (1994). A measure for brain complexity: relating functional segregation and integration in the nervous system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 91(11), 5033-5037.
[14] Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen theorie. Suhrkamp.
[15] Bedau, M. A. (1997). Weak emergence. Philosophical perspectives, 11, 375-399.
[16] Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence, 1(1), 49-72.
[17] Fromm, J. (2005). Types and forms of emergence. arXiv preprint nlin/0506028.
[18] Frigg, R., & Werndl, C. (2011). Entropy—A guide for the perplexed. In Probabilities in physics (pp. 115-142). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[19] Wimsatt, W. C. (2006). Reductionism and its heuristics: Making methodological reductionism honest. Synthese, 151(3), 445-475.
[20] Gros, C. (2015). Complex and adaptive dynamical systems: A primer. Springer.
[21] Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Wayne state university press.
[22] Bunge, M. (2003). Emergence and convergence: Qualitative novelty and the unity of knowledge. University of Toronto Press.
[23] Craver, C. F., & Bechtel, W. (2007). Top-down causation without top-down causes. Biology & Philosophy, 22(4), 547-563.
[24] Wimsatt, W. C. (2007). Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: Piecewise approximations to reality. Harvard University Press.