更改

研究人员一直困扰于如何完整定义单个生物体、物种、生态系统、生物进化和生物圈的复杂性，而且这仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。

研究人员一直困扰于如何完整定义单个生物体、物种、生态系统、生物进化和生物圈的复杂性，而且这仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。

A complete definition of [[complexity]] for individual organisms, species, ecosystems, biological evolution and the biosphere has eluded researchers, and still is an ongoing issue.<ref name="Bonner" /><ref>Heylighen, Francis (2008). "Complexity and Self-Organization". In Bates, Marcia J.; Maack, Mary Niles. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences. CRC. {{ISBN|978-0-8493-9712-7}}</ref>[[File:Seawifs global biosphere.jpg|thumb|right]]

A complete definition of [[complexity]] for individual organisms, species, ecosystems, biological evolution and the biosphere has eluded researchers, and still is an ongoing issue.<ref name="Bonner" /><ref>Heylighen, Francis (2008). "Complexity and Self-Organization". In Bates, Marcia J.; Maack, Mary Niles. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences. CRC.</ref>[[File:Seawifs global biosphere.jpg|thumb|right]]

大多数复杂系统模型通常是根据统计物理学、信息论和非线性动力学的概念来制定的；这些方法并不关注或者说不包括与组织、拓扑属性或代数拓扑有关的复杂性的概念部分，如基因组、交互体和生物有机体的网络连通性这些重要概念。近年来，人们把以信息论、网络拓扑/抽象图论概念为基础的两种互补方法在神经科学和人类认知等领域结合起来。人们普遍认为，组织的复杂程度存在一种应与本体论的现实层次相区别层次结构，现代等级分类的分类方法也承认生物圈的例如:生物领域和生物圈、生物的界、门、纲、目、科、属和种等复杂层次结构。由于生物体具有动态性和组成的可变性、内在的“模糊性”、自生属性、自我繁殖的能力等等，生物体不符合一般系统的“标准”的定义，因此它们在功能和结构上都是“超级复杂”的；因此，在CSB中，生物体只能被定义为一种简单动态系统，“元系统”。这样一个有机体、物种、“生态系统”等等的元系统定义，并不等同于自生系统理论中对系统中的系统的定义。它也不同于K·D·帕尔默在元系统工程中提出的定义，即生物体不同于具有固定输入输出转换函数的机器和自动机，或不同于具有固定相空间的连续动力系统，这与笛卡尔哲学思想相反；因此，尽管“非确定性自动机”和“模糊自动机”也被定义了，但生物体不能仅仅用五组a（状态、启动状态、输入和输出集/字母、转换函数）来定义。然而，棋盘自动机 tessellation automata或元胞自动机 cellular automata 提供了一种直观的、可视化的/计算的视角来洞察较低层次的复杂性，因此已经成为一种越来越流行的离散模型，研究领域包括可计算理论、应用数学、物理、计算机科学、理论生物学/系统生物学、癌症模拟和微观结构建模。利用遗传算法实现元胞自动机是一个桥接棋盘自动机和CSB中的高层次复杂性方法之间差距的新兴领域。

大多数复杂系统模型通常是根据统计物理学、信息论和非线性动力学的概念来制定的；这些方法并不关注或者说不包括与组织、拓扑属性或代数拓扑有关的复杂性的概念部分，如基因组、交互体和生物有机体的网络连通性这些重要概念。近年来，人们把以信息论、网络拓扑/抽象图论概念为基础的两种互补方法在神经科学和人类认知等领域结合起来。人们普遍认为，组织的复杂程度存在一种应与本体论的现实层次相区别层次结构，现代等级分类的分类方法也承认生物圈的例如:生物领域和生物圈、生物的界、门、纲、目、科、属和种等复杂层次结构。由于生物体具有动态性和组成的可变性、内在的“模糊性”、自生属性、自我繁殖的能力等等，生物体不符合一般系统的“标准”的定义，因此它们在功能和结构上都是“超级复杂”的；因此，在CSB中，生物体只能被定义为一种简单动态系统，“元系统”。这样一个有机体、物种、“生态系统”等等的元系统定义，并不等同于自生系统理论中对系统中的系统的定义。它也不同于K·D·帕尔默在元系统工程中提出的定义，即生物体不同于具有固定输入输出转换函数的机器和自动机，或不同于具有固定相空间的连续动力系统，这与笛卡尔哲学思想相反；因此，尽管“非确定性自动机”和“模糊自动机”也被定义了，但生物体不能仅仅用五组a（状态、启动状态、输入和输出集/字母、转换函数）来定义。然而，棋盘自动机 tessellation automata或元胞自动机 cellular automata 提供了一种直观的、可视化的/计算的视角来洞察较低层次的复杂性，因此已经成为一种越来越流行的离散模型，研究领域包括可计算理论、应用数学、物理、计算机科学、理论生物学/系统生物学、癌症模拟和微观结构建模。利用遗传算法实现元胞自动机是一个桥接棋盘自动机和CSB中的高层次复杂性方法之间差距的新兴领域。

Most [[complex system]] models are often formulated in terms of concepts drawn from statistical physics, information theory and non-linear dynamics; however, such approaches are not focused on, or do not include,  the conceptual part of complexity related to organization and topological attributes or algebraic topology, such as network connectivity of genomes, interactomes and biological organisms that are very important.<ref name="Rosen" /><ref>^ Heylighen, Francis (2008). "Complexity and Self-Organization". In Bates, Marcia J.; Maack, Mary Niles. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences. CRC. {{ISBN|978-0-8493-9712-7}}</ref><ref>"abstract relational biology (ARB)". PlanetPhysics. Retrieved 2010-03-17.</ref> Recently, the two complementary approaches based both on [[information theory]], [[network topology]]/[[graph theory|abstract graph theory]] concepts are being combined for example in the fields of [[neuroscience]] and [[cognition|human cognition]].<ref name="springerlink" /><ref>http://hdl.handle.net/10101/npre.2011.6115.1 Wallace, Rodrick. When Spandrels Become Arches: Neural crosstalk and the evolution of consciousness. Available from Nature Precedings  (2011)</ref> It is generally agreed that there is a [[hierarchy]] of complexity levels of organization that should be considered as distinct from that of the levels of reality in [[ontology]].<ref name="springerlink" /><ref>{{cite journal | author = Poli R | year = 2001a | title = The Basic Problem of the Theory of Levels of Reality | url = | journal = Axiomathes | volume = 12 | issue = 3–4| pages = 261–283 | doi = 10.1023/A:1015845217681 | s2cid = 55743057 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | author = Poli R | year = 1998 | title = Levels | url = | journal = Axiomathes | volume = 9 | issue = 1–2| pages = 197–211 | doi=10.1007/bf02681712| pmid = 8053082 }}</ref> The hierarchy of complexity levels of organization in the biosphere is also recognized in modern classifications of taxonomic ranks, such as: [[domain (biology)|biological domain]] and biosphere, [[Kingdom (biology)|biological kingdom]], [[Phylum]], [[Class (biology)|biological class]], [[Order (biology)|order]], [[Family (biology)|family]], [[genus]] and [[species]]. Because of their dynamic and composition variability, intrinsic "fuzziness",  autopoietic attributes, ability to self-reproduce, and so on, organisms do not fit into the 'standard' definition of general systems, and they are therefore 'super-complex' in both their function and structure; organisms can be thus be defined in CSB only as '[[meta-system]]s' of simpler dynamic systems<ref name="springerlink" /><ref>[http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MST.html Metasystem Transition Theory], [[Valentin Turchin]], [[Cliff Joslyn]], 1993-1997</ref> Such a meta-system definition of organisms, species, 'ecosystems', and so on, is  not equivalent to the definition of a ''system of systems'' as in [[Autopoiesis|Autopoietic System]]s Theory,;<ref>[http://archonic.net Reflexive Autopoietic Systems Theory]</ref> it also differs from the definition proposed for example by K.D. Palmer in meta-system engineering,<ref>[http://archonic.net/incosewg/ppframe.htm Meta-system Engineering], Kent D. Palmer, 1996</ref> organisms being quite different from machines and [[Automata theory|automata]] with fixed input-output transition functions, or a continuous [[dynamical system]] with fixed [[phase space]],<ref>Hoff, M.A., Roggia, K.G., Menezes, P.B.:(2004). Composition of Transformations: A Framework for Systems with Dynamic Topology. ''International Journal of Computing Anticipatory System's'' 14:259–270</ref> contrary to the Cartesian philosophical thinking; thus, organisms cannot be defined merely in terms of a quintuple ''A'' of ''(states, startup state, input and output sets/alphabet, transition function)'',<ref>[[John E. Hopcroft]], [[Rajeev Motwani]], [[Jeffrey D. Ullman]].2000. [[Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation]] (2nd Edition)Pearson Education. {{ISBN|0-201-44124-1}}</ref> although 'non-deterministic automata', as well as 'fuzzy automata' have also been defined. Tessellation or [[cellular automaton|cellular automata]] provide however an intuitive, visual/computational insight into the lower levels of complexity, and have therefore become an increasingly popular, discrete model studied in computability theory, applied mathematics, physics, computer science, theoretical biology/systems biology, cancer simulations and microstructure modeling. Evolving cellular automata using genetic algorithms<ref>The Evolutionary Design of Collective Computation in Cellular Automata, James P. Crutchfeld, Melanie Mitchell, Rajarshi Das (In J. P. Crutchfield and P. K. Schuster (editors), Evolutionary Dynamics|Exploring the Interplay of Selection, Neutrality, Accident, and Function. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.)</ref><ref>Evolving Cellular Automata with Genetic Algorithms: A Review of Recent Work, Melanie Mitchell, James P. Crutchfeld, Rajarshi Das (In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Evolutionary Computation and Its Applications (EvCA'96). Moscow, Russia: Russian Academy of Sciences, 1996.)</ref><ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1073/pnas.0307811100 | last1 = Peak | first1 = West | last2 = Messinger | first2 = Mott | year = 2004 | title = Evidence for complex, collective dynamics and emergent, distributed computation in plants | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA | volume = 101 | issue = 4| pages = 918–922 |bibcode = 2004PNAS..101..918P | pmid = 14732685 | last3 = Messinger | first3 = SM | last4 = Mott | first4 = KA | pmc = 327117}}</ref> is also an emerging field attempting to bridge the gap between the tessellation automata and the higher level complexity approaches in CSB.

Most [[complex system]] models are often formulated in terms of concepts drawn from statistical physics, information theory and non-linear dynamics; however, such approaches are not focused on, or do not include,  the conceptual part of complexity related to organization and topological attributes or algebraic topology, such as network connectivity of genomes, interactomes and biological organisms that are very important.<ref name="Rosen" /><ref>^ Heylighen, Francis (2008). "Complexity and Self-Organization". In Bates, Marcia J.; Maack, Mary Niles. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences. CRC.</ref><ref>"abstract relational biology (ARB)". PlanetPhysics. Retrieved 2010-03-17.</ref> Recently, the two complementary approaches based both on [[information theory]], [[network topology]]/[[graph theory|abstract graph theory]] concepts are being combined for example in the fields of [[neuroscience]] and [[cognition|human cognition]].<ref name="springerlink" /><ref>http://hdl.handle.net/10101/npre.2011.6115.1 Wallace, Rodrick. When Spandrels Become Arches: Neural crosstalk and the evolution of consciousness. Available from Nature Precedings  (2011)</ref> It is generally agreed that there is a [[hierarchy]] of complexity levels of organization that should be considered as distinct from that of the levels of reality in [[ontology]].<ref name="springerlink" /><ref>{{cite journal | author = Poli R | year = 2001a | title = The Basic Problem of the Theory of Levels of Reality | url = | journal = Axiomathes | volume = 12 | issue = 3–4| pages = 261–283 | doi = 10.1023/A:1015845217681 | s2cid = 55743057 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | author = Poli R | year = 1998 | title = Levels | url = | journal = Axiomathes | volume = 9 | issue = 1–2| pages = 197–211 | doi=10.1007/bf02681712| pmid = 8053082 }}</ref> The hierarchy of complexity levels of organization in the biosphere is also recognized in modern classifications of taxonomic ranks, such as: [[domain (biology)|biological domain]] and biosphere, [[Kingdom (biology)|biological kingdom]], [[Phylum]], [[Class (biology)|biological class]], [[Order (biology)|order]], [[Family (biology)|family]], [[genus]] and [[species]]. Because of their dynamic and composition variability, intrinsic "fuzziness",  autopoietic attributes, ability to self-reproduce, and so on, organisms do not fit into the 'standard' definition of general systems, and they are therefore 'super-complex' in both their function and structure; organisms can be thus be defined in CSB only as '[[meta-system]]s' of simpler dynamic systems<ref name="springerlink" /><ref>[http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MST.html Metasystem Transition Theory], [[Valentin Turchin]], [[Cliff Joslyn]], 1993-1997</ref> Such a meta-system definition of organisms, species, 'ecosystems', and so on, is  not equivalent to the definition of a ''system of systems'' as in [[Autopoiesis|Autopoietic System]]s Theory,;<ref>[http://archonic.net Reflexive Autopoietic Systems Theory]</ref> it also differs from the definition proposed for example by K.D. Palmer in meta-system engineering,<ref>[http://archonic.net/incosewg/ppframe.htm Meta-system Engineering], Kent D. Palmer, 1996</ref> organisms being quite different from machines and [[Automata theory|automata]] with fixed input-output transition functions, or a continuous [[dynamical system]] with fixed [[phase space]],<ref>Hoff, M.A., Roggia, K.G., Menezes, P.B.:(2004). Composition of Transformations: A Framework for Systems with Dynamic Topology. ''International Journal of Computing Anticipatory System's'' 14:259–270</ref> contrary to the Cartesian philosophical thinking; thus, organisms cannot be defined merely in terms of a quintuple ''A'' of ''(states, startup state, input and output sets/alphabet, transition function)'',<ref>[[John E. Hopcroft]], [[Rajeev Motwani]], [[Jeffrey D. Ullman]].2000. [[Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation]] (2nd Edition)Pearson Education. </ref> although 'non-deterministic automata', as well as 'fuzzy automata' have also been defined. Tessellation or [[cellular automaton|cellular automata]] provide however an intuitive, visual/computational insight into the lower levels of complexity, and have therefore become an increasingly popular, discrete model studied in computability theory, applied mathematics, physics, computer science, theoretical biology/systems biology, cancer simulations and microstructure modeling. Evolving cellular automata using genetic algorithms<ref>The Evolutionary Design of Collective Computation in Cellular Automata, James P. Crutchfeld, Melanie Mitchell, Rajarshi Das (In J. P. Crutchfield and P. K. Schuster (editors), Evolutionary Dynamics|Exploring the Interplay of Selection, Neutrality, Accident, and Function. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.)</ref><ref>Evolving Cellular Automata with Genetic Algorithms: A Review of Recent Work, Melanie Mitchell, James P. Crutchfeld, Rajarshi Das (In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Evolutionary Computation and Its Applications (EvCA'96). Moscow, Russia: Russian Academy of Sciences, 1996.)</ref><ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1073/pnas.0307811100 | last1 = Peak | first1 = West | last2 = Messinger | first2 = Mott | year = 2004 | title = Evidence for complex, collective dynamics and emergent, distributed computation in plants | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA | volume = 101 | issue = 4| pages = 918–922 |bibcode = 2004PNAS..101..918P | pmid = 14732685 | last3 = Messinger | first3 = SM | last4 = Mott | first4 = KA | pmc = 327117}}</ref> is also an emerging field attempting to bridge the gap between the tessellation automata and the higher level complexity approaches in CSB.

==复杂系统生物学的主题==

==复杂系统生物学的主题==