Anticipation and dynamics: Rosen's anticipation in the perspective of time

TL;DR: While Robert Rosen's work is the main focus of this article, an attempt is made to advance a perspective for the broad field of studies that developed around the notion of anticipation, including the circumstances of epistemological and gnoseological significance, leading to the articulation of the early hypotheses regarding anticipatory processes.

Abstract: Anticipation relates to the perception of change. Therefore, dynamics is the context for defining anticipation processes. Since preoccupation with change is as old as science itself, anticipation-related questions go back to the first attempts to explain why and how things change. However, as a specific concept, anticipation insinuates itself in the language of science in the writings of Whitehead, Burgers, Bennett, Feynman, Svoboda, Rosen, Nadin and Dubois, i.e. since 1929. While Robert Rosen’s work is the main focus of this article, an attempt is made to advance a perspective for the broad field of studies that developed around the notion of anticipation. Of particular interest are the circumstances of epistemological and gnoseological significance, leading to the articulation of the early hypotheses regarding anticipatory processes. Of no less interest to the scientific community are questions pertinent to complexity, adaptivity, purposiveness, time and computability as they relate to our understanding of anticipation.

Figures

Figure 2. Rosen’s (M,R)-model.

Figure 3. ‘Roadsigns definitions postulates aphorisms, etc.’ [sic] (von Foerster 1995).

Figure 1. Feynman’s [1999] original state diagram.

Full text

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
On:
11 January 2010
Access details:
Access Details: Free Access
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of General Systems
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713642931
Anticipation and dynamics: Rosen's anticipation in the perspective of time
Mihai Nadin
a
a
antÉ-Institute for Research in Anticipatory Systems, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX,
USA
Online publication date: 09 December 2009
To cite this Article Nadin, Mihai(2010) 'Anticipation and dynamics: Rosen's anticipation in the perspective of time',
International Journal of General Systems, 39: 1, 3 — 33
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/03081070903453685
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03081070903453685
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Anticipation and dynamics: Rosen’s anticipation in the perspective
of time
Mihai Nadin*
1
antE
´
–Institute for Research in Anticipatory Systems, University of Texas at Dallas, AT 10, 800
West Campbell Road, Richardson, TX 75080-3021, USA
(Received 8 April 2009; final version received 19 October 2009)
Anticipation relates to the perception of change. Therefore, dynamics is the context for
defining anticipation processes. Since preoccupation with change is as old as science
itself, anticipation-related questions go back to the first attempts to explain why and
how things change. However, as a specific concept, anticipation insinuates itself in the
language of science in the writings of Whitehead, Burgers, Bennett, Feynman,
Svoboda, Rosen, Nadin and Dubois, i.e. since 1929. While Robert Rosen’s work is the
main focus of this article, an attempt is made to advance a perspective for the broad
field of studies that developed around the notion of anticipation. Of particular interest
are the circumstances of epistemological and gnoseological significance, leading to the
articulation of the early hypotheses regarding anticipatory processes. Of no less interest
to the scientific community are questions pertinent to complexity, adaptivity,
purposiveness, time and computability as they relate to our understanding of
anticipation.
Keywords: anticipatory systems; ambiguity; causality; complexity; impredicativity;
non-determinism
Introduction
Those familiar with the history of science are aware of the fact that, in retrospect, some
theories, new concepts and new methods seemed to have been so much ahead of their time
that they were either ignored or declared unviable. A very telling example in this sense is
Leibniz and his digital notation. Leibniz’s attempt at a universal language deserves to be
celebrated as the precursor of the computer age (Nadin 1982, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c). His
vision of an ideal language (characteristica universalis) and his calculus racionator
effectively anticipated computation as the foundation of what today is called the
information society. De progressione dyadica, dated March 1679, is a text on binary
representation. His letter of 2 January 1697 shows how, in the form of a memorial coin
(Gedenkmu
¨
nze), one can establish a record of accomplishments (those of his patron, the
Herzog Rudolph August) using the very precise language of only two symbols: 0 and 1
(Leibniz 1965, 1968, 1986). He used pictorial elements to compensate for the lack of
expressiveness.
This example is quite clear with regard to what is needed for an idea to percola te,
moreover, how often the deep roots of an idea are ignored. The practitioners of
information technology – so many disciplines are based on it – will definitely not relate
ISSN 0308-1079 print/ISSN 1563-5104 online
q 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/03081070903453685
http://www.informaworld.com
*Email: nadin@utdallas.edu
International Journal of General Systems
Vol. 39, No. 1, January 2010, 3–33
Downloaded At: 04:06 11 January 2010

their work and expertise to Leibniz. What led to the assertion that Leibniz is the father of
the digital is the powerful representation he chose. His revolutionary thought was not
intended to please a patron or even to open access to Chinese writing (Leibniz 1968) – in
particular the Book of Changes (I-ching) – but to overcome the ambiguities of natural
language. This goal will prove to be related to the foundations of a science of anticipation,
and therefore, we shall return to it.
The opening sentence alluded to discoveries initially resisted, ignored or simply
rejected. Leibniz’s digital machine was what we today call ‘premature birth’. It was
difficult to connect its implications to the given state of affairs in science. In other cases,
the new ideas challenge the accepted understanding of reality. Darwin’s observations in
the Galapagos Islands explained variety (of finches, for instance) in terms of a process –
evolution. But it took almost a century for biologists to understand his view. The fact that
evolution involves anticipation justifies mentioning Darwin’s case in an article focused on
processes involving or resulting in foresight. More examples can be given, mainly in order
to realise that delayed recognition is part of the contradictory dynamics of science.
(The fact that in our days we want recognition immediately, and often get it, does not
affect the argument.)
Those currently involved in the study of anticipation, or those just discovering the
subject, might discard this attempt to suggest a frame of reference. The argument could be
as simple as: so long as our un derstanding of anticipation does not continue that of the
precursors, regardless of how qualified and creative they were, why bother? Indeed, if the
past does not constitute a reference, the effort to reco nstitute it remains, at best, of
documentary significance. Leibniz’s work on binary representations and on a machine
capable of processing them is still practically ignored by the community of scientists and
practitioners of computation. That a mathematician, Gregory Chaitin (inspired by
Hermann Weyl, himself a mathematician and philosopher of science), brought Leibniz
into current scientific discourse is pertinent to our subject inso far as Leibniz is identified as
one of the first to dedicate his thoughts to the subject of complexity. Is Chaitin’s
algorithmic information theory – for which Stephan Wolfram presented him with a medal
that replicates the thought of Leibniz’s medallion – yet another example of a science
ahead of its time? Is Wolfram’s New Kind of Science (2002) in the same category?
Let us take note of the following: Once a branch of science becomes successful, some
of its practitioners look for precursors. And often they realise that the ‘wheel’ to which
they attached their names was invented well before. They also have the opportunity to
discover in the original thoughts man y paths to be pursued. To a certain extent, this holds
true for the works of scholars who set forth the initial systematic considerations on
anticipation. Le t us mention them in these preliminary lines: Alfred North Whitehead,
J.M. Burgers, J.W. Bennett, Buckminster Fuller, A. Svoboda, R. Feynman, Robert Rosen,
Mihai Nadin and D.M. Dubois (the list is open and definitely subject to comment).
Interestingly enough, reading the initial contributions made by such authors makes evident
that representations, models, evolution, complexity and dynamics, in addition to
purposiveness, causality and time, are part of the vocabulary deployed to make the
argument in favour of a distinct scientific subject.
The annotated bibliography associated with this article docum ents the emergence of a
‘data-rich’ but ‘theory-poor’ field of inquiry. By no means exhaustive, the bibliography
(listing publications up to the beginning of 2009) shows how far across academic
disciplines’ anticipation extends.
M. Nadin4
Downloaded At: 04:06 11 January 2010

Context
Some interesting developments recommend themselves to our attenti on. I will introduce
them almost in the style of headlines, with the intention to reconnect to them as the line of
argument requires:
. ‘Bacteria Can Plan Ahead Israeli Scientists Say’. Bacteria can anticipate and
prepare for future events, according to new research from the Weizmann Institute of
Science, which appeared in Nature. Researchers from the Institute’s Molecular
Genetics Department discovered that the genetic networks of micro-organisms
could predict what comes next in a sequence of events and begin responding before
its onset (Mitchell et al. 2009).
. Brain Imaging: ‘Wave of Brain Activity Linked to Anticipation Captured’ (Science
Daily, 2009) reporting on ‘Brain Activation during Anticipation of Sound
Sequences’ (Leaver et al. 2009). Neuroscientists at Georgetown University Medical
Center have, for the first time , shown what brain activity looks like when someone
anticipates an action or sensory input which soon follows (See also Soon et al.
(2008)).
. Insensitivity to future consequences, after damage to the human prefrontal cortex,
affects the anticipation of risk (Fukui and Murai 2005, Nadin 2009a).
. With the aim of fluency and efficiency in human–robot teams, a cognitive
architecture based on the neuro-psychological principles of anticipation and
perceptual simulation through top-down biasing was developed (Hoffman and
Breazeal 2007, 2008a, 2008b).
This article is written in a context that can be characterised as one of missed
anticipations. In this vein, Rosen should be quoted: ‘I think it is fair to say that the mood of
those concerned with the problems of contemporary society is apocalyptic’. Scheduled for
Tuesday, 16 May 1972, Rosen’s presentation, ‘Planning management, policies and
strategies: four fuzzy concepts’ at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions,
started with the sentence quoted above, and it applies to our times without any amendment.
(We shall return to Rosen’s work and to this particular article.) In this respect, let us make
note of the fact that economists, as well as process control scientists, recognised early on
that anticipation deserves their attention (W.I. King, W.T. Powers and G.L.S. Shackle).
Their attempts can inform our current preoccupation with the broad subject of
anticipation.
Almost 25 years ago, Robert Rosen’s book on anticipation, Anticipatory Systems
(1985) first reached readers. Another book (Nadin 1991) introducing the concept of
anticipation was published 6 years later. The perspective of time and the evidence of
increasing interest from the scientific community in understanding anticipatory processes
speak in favou r of describing the premises for the initial definition of anticipation. The
work of Alfred North Whitehead (1929) advanced the idea that every process involves the
past and the anticipation of future possibilities. This thought is part of a larger philosophic
tradition sketched out (Nadin 2000) in the attempt to identify early considerations on the
subject. Indeed, let us be aware of the variety of understandings associated with the
concept because otherwise there is a real risk of trivialising anticipation before we know
what it is. Burgers (1975) was inspired by Whitehead. Although he came from Physics,
Burgers brought up choice and the preservation of freedom as coextensive with
anticipation. Bennett (1976a, p. 847), an anthropologist, saw anticipation as ‘the basis for
adaptation’. In his book (Bennett 1976b), the same broad considerations made the subject
International Journal of General Systems 5
Downloaded At: 04:06 11 January 2010

of an entire chapter (VII), in which Whitehead’s notion of anticipation, extended to the
entire realm of reality, is limited to living systems. Both Burgers and Bennett are part of
the broader context in which anticipation, usually used as a name holder in psychology,
slowly became part of the vocabulary of science and philosophy at the end of the last
century.
Feynman, famous for his contributions to quantum electrodynamics (which earned
him a Nobel Prize, in 1965, shared with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga), is
probably, more by intuition than anything else, a part of the scientific story of anticipation.
Feynman’s own involvement with computers dated back to Los Alamos (the Manhattan
Project, 1943–1945); in his biographical notes, the subject is dealt with among so many
others. Howeve r, one is surprised, as he himself was, at finding out that some digitally
computed data were quite different from the results produced when computing the same
data in his mind – he somehow anticipated the results. He did not specifically bring up
the difference made by the medium of computation, but awareness of this difference
cannot be ignored. In the early 1980s, Feynman, John Hopfield and Carver Mead offered
‘The Physics of Computation’ course at the California Institute of Technology. Later on,
interaction with Gerry Sussman (on sabbatical from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology) helped him develop ‘Potent ialities and Limitations of Computing Machines’.
Another interaction, with Ed Fredkin, allowed him to understand the problem of reversible
computation; and yet another interaction, with Danny Hillis, gave him the opportunity to
become involved in parallel computing. These biographical details – and there are so
many more relevant to the depth of Feynman’s involvement with the subject of
computation – are significa nt here because he, as opposed to everyone else, brought up
anticipation, however indirectly, not from biology but from computation.
In an article entitled ‘Simulating Physics with Computers’, Feynman (1982) made
relatively clear that he was aware of the distinction between what is represented (Nature –
his spelling with a capital N, and nothing else, since Physics always laid claim upon it),
and the representation (computation). The physical system can be simulated by a machine,
but that does not make the machine the same as what it simulates. Not unlike other
scientists, Feynman focused on states: the space –time view, ‘imagining that the points o f
space and time are all laid out, so to speak, ahead of time’. The computer operation would
be to see how changes in the space– time view take place. This is what dynamics is. His
drawing is very intuitive (Figure 1):
The sta te s
i
at space –time coordinate i is described through a function F (Feynman did
not discuss the nature of the function): s
i
¼ F
i
(s
j
, s
k
, ...). The deterministic view – i.e. the
past affects the present – would result, as he noticed, in the cellular automaton: ‘the value
of the function at i only involves the points behind in time, earlier than this time i’.
Figure 1. Feynman’s [1999] original state diagram.
M. Nadin6
Downloaded At: 04:06 11 January 2010

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions mentioned in the paper "Anticipation and dynamics: rosen's anticipation in the perspective of time" ?

Nadin et al. this paper pointed out that the deep roots of an idea are often ignored or declared unviable. 

Q2. What was Rosen’s main focus during his time at the Center?

Subjects such as planning, management, political change and stable and reliable institutions informed Rosen’s presentations at the Center during the 1971–1972 academic year, when he was a Visiting Fellow. 

Q3. What led him to research more deeply into anticipatory systems?

Research in dynamic systems and mind functioning at Stanford University led Nadin to search more deeply into anticipatory systems. 

Q4. When did Dr Nadin become an Ashbel Smith University Professor?

The Institute became part of the University of Texas at Dallas in 2004, when Dr Nadin accepted the university’s invitation to become an Ashbel Smith University Professor. 

Q5. What was the unfairness of the commentators of his work?

It was unfair of many of the commentators of his work to see in him a rather esoteric researcher, disconnected from reality, only because his arguments were articulated in the extremely abstract language of mathematics, in particular, category theory. 

Q6. What is the encouraging aspect of the article?

The very encouraging aspect here is that measurements of trigger-based experiments reveal what happens before the trigger; in other words, in anticipation of stimuli, not as a result of them. 

Q7. What was the first time that a scientific meeting was made possible?

At the time when systems theory emerged, a great number of high-quality scientific events made possible the meeting of scientists who usually do not meet: physicists, biologists, mathematicians and engineers. 

Q8. What was his first interaction with a computer scientist?

Later on, interaction with Gerry Sussman (on sabbatical from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) helped him develop ‘Potentialities and Limitations of Computing Machines’. 

Q9. Who published The Causes of Economic Fluctuations?

The American economist Willford Isbell King (incidentally, at one time Chairman of the Committee for Constitutional Government) published The Causes of Economic Fluctuations: Possibilities of Anticipation and Control (1938). 

Q10. What was the reason for the change in the accepted view of the living?

Elsasser worked on a new foundation of biology because the accepted view of considering Physics as its foundation no longer did justice to the complexity specific to the living.