ABSTRACT
The subject of complexity is, well-complex. Since it is considered bad form to define a word in terms of words from which it is derived, we can consult the dictionary to see how the language experts define complexity. I have always disliked it when authors begin an article by saying “Webster’s defines [subject] as ... nevertheless, I could not resist my curiosity to see what my own timeworn Webster’s [1] had to say: “complexity ... 1: the quality or state of being complex 2: something complex,” which was my first thought, as expressed in the opening sentence. Next, I went to the root: “complex ... 1: a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts,” and finally “complicated ... 1: consisting of parts intricately combined 2: difficult to analyze, understand, or explain syn see COMPLEX.” (The emphasis is mine throughout.) I had come full circle, back to the root. I thought the adverb ‘intricately’ might be the key, until I looked up “intricate ... 1: having many complexly interrelated parts or elements: COMPLICATED 2: difficult to resolve or analyze syn see COMPLEX.” Thus, I found myself back at the root again. What I gleaned from this exercise was the importance of being interrelated-and that complexity is
difficult! “Difficult” was not defined in terms of complexity, and it was with trepidation that I looked up “interrelated;” it did not say anything about being complex or intricate, so I was free of the tautology trap. One of the main themes of this chapter is the development of a definition of complexity in terms of the interactions among the parts of a system that will reflect how they are interrelated in a meaningful and useful way.
