Introduction to focus issue on "randomness, structure, and causality: measures of complexity from theory to applications"

Why is Complexity Science valuable for reaching the goals of the UN 2030 Agenda?

The goals and targets included in the 2030 Agenda compiled by the United Nations want to stimulate action in areas of critical importance for humanity and the Earth. These goals and targets regard everyone on Earth from both the health and economic and social perspectives. Reaching these goals means to deal with Complex Systems. Therefore, Complexity Science is undoubtedly valuable. However, it needs to extend its scope and focus on some specific objectives. This article proposes a development of Complexity Science that will bring benefits for achieving the United Nations' aims. It presents a list of the features shared by all the Complex Systems involved in the 2030 Agenda. It shows the reasons why there are certain limitations in the prediction of Complex Systems' behaviors. It highlights that such limitations raise ethical issues whenever new technologies interfere with the dynamics of Complex Systems, such as human beings and the environment. Finally, new methodological approaches and promising research lines to face Complexity Challenges included in the 2030 Agenda are put forward.

Multiple time-scales and the developmental dynamics of social systems

To build a theory of social complexity, we need to understand how aggregate social properties arise from individual interaction rules. Here, I review a body of work on the developmental dynamics of pigtailed macaque social organization and conflict management that provides insight into the mechanistic causes of multi-scale social systems. In this model system coarse-grained, statistical representations of collective dynamics are more predictive of the future state of the system than the constantly in-flux behavioural patterns at the individual level. The data suggest that individuals can perceive and use these representations for strategical decision-making. As an interaction history accumulates the coarse-grained representations consolidate. This constrains individual behaviour and provides the foundations for new levels of organization. The time-scales on which these representations change impact whether the consolidating higher-levels can be modified by individuals and collectively. The time-scales appear to be a function of the 'coarseness' of the representations and the character of the collective dynamics over which they are averages. The data suggest that an advantage of multiple timescales is that they allow social systems to balance tradeoffs between predictability and adaptability. I briefly discuss the implications of these findings for cognition, social niche construction and the evolution of new levels of organization in biological systems.

Challenges for complexity measures: A perspective from social dynamics and collective social computation

We review an empirically grounded approach to studying the emergence of collective properties from individual interactions in social dynamics. When individual decision-making rules, strategies, can be extracted from the time-series data, these can be used to construct adaptive social circuits. Social circuits provide a compact description of collective effects by mapping rules at the individual level to statistical properties of aggregates. This defines a simple form of social computation. We consider the properties that complexity measures would need to have to best capture regularities at different level of analysis, from individual rules to circuits to population statistics. One obvious benefit of using the properties and structure of biological and social systems to guide the development of complexity measures is that it is more likely to produce measures that can be applied to data. Principled but pragmatic measures would allow for a rigorous investigation of the relationship between adaptive features at the micro, meso, and macro scales, a long standing goal of evolutionary theory. A second benefit is that empirically grounded complexity measures would facilitate quantitative comparisons of strategies, circuits, and aggregate properties across social systems.