Based on the sources, the answer to whether complexity is a property of reality (ontology) or the observer (epistemology) constitutes one of the deepest divides in the field. There is no single consensus; rather, the sources split into two distinct camps, with a third group offering a bridge based on the limits of modeling.
1. The Ontological View: Complexity Exists “Out There”
Proponents of this view argue that complexity is an objective feature of reality, independent of human perception. In this framework, systems are complex, possessing intrinsic physical or causal properties that differ from ordered or simple systems.
• **Distinct Domains of Reality:**Dave Snowden is the strongest proponent of this view, arguing that complexity is an ontological state, not just a lack of data. He posits that reality is divided into distinct domains: “ordered” (where causality is repeating and discoverable) and “complex” (where causality is “dispositional” and only coherent in retrospect)[1][2].
• Physical Thermodynamics: Sources drawing on Alicia Juarrero and Ilya Prigogine root complexity in physics. They define complex systems as objectively existing “far-from-equilibrium” structures (like chemical clocks or living organisms) that self-organize through non-linear dynamics[3][4]. These systems “carry their history on their backs” and undergo physical phase transitions regardless of who is observing them[5].
• **Living vs. Inert:**Mike McMaster and authors discussing Autopoiesis (Maturana) distinguish between “inert” systems (machines) and “living” systems. Living systems have an objective identity defined by their internal organization and structural determinism, which exists independently of an external observer’s description[6][7].
2. The Epistemological View: Complexity is a Property of the Observer
Conversely, the “Soft Systems” and “Systems Science” traditions argue that complexity is a mental construct. It is a measure of the relationship between the observer and the observed, often defined by a lack of understanding or the mental models used.
• **Complexity as Confusion:**Russ Ackoff asserts that complexity is “less a property of problems than it is of those who face them”[8]. He argues that a situation appears complex only because the observer lacks understanding; as understanding increases, the number of variables required to explain the situation decreases, and the “complexity” dissolves[8][9].
• **Complexity as Frustration:**John Warfield explicitly defines complexity as residing in the human mind. He views it as the “frustration arising from lack of comprehension” when looking at a situation[10]. For Warfield, complexity is not in the system; it is a behavioral pathology of the observer[11].
• **“System” as a Mental Tool:**Peter Checkland fundamentally separates the world from our description of it. He argues that the world is “complex, mysterious, and problematical,” but that “systems” do not exist in the world. Instead, a “system” is an epistemological device—a mental model or “holon”—organized by an inquirer to structure debate about the messy world[12]. To treat systems as real entities (as the ontological camp does) is considered a category error in this view[13].
3. The Relational View: Complexity as the Failure of Models
A nuanced “middle path” emerges from the work of Robert Rosen, Tim Allen, and Paul Cilliers. They argue that complexity is determined by the limits of our ability to model reality.
• **Non-Simulability:**Robert Rosen defines a system as “simple” if it can be fully simulated or computed[14]. A system is “complex” if it is non-simulable—meaning it has no “largest model” that can capture all its behaviors[15].
• **Normative State:**Tim Allen argues that complexity is not a material property of the world but a “normative state” that arises when we possess no paradigm or formal model to define the system[16]. If a system can be fully captured by a model, it is technically simple; complexity is what remains when models fail due to contradiction and uncertainty[16].
• **Observer-Dependent Boundaries:**Paul Cilliers and Niklas Luhmann emphasize that while reality imposes constraints, the boundaries of a system are drawn by the observer[17]. Luhmann notes that complexity forces selectivity; because everything cannot be connected to everything, the system (or observer) must select specific relations, thereby constructing the complexity they observe[18].
Summary: The Practical Implication
The sources suggest that how you answer this question dictates your management strategy:
| Perspective | Complexity Is… | Strategy | Representative Authors |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ontological | Real. A physical state of entanglement and non-linearity. | Probe-Sense-Respond. You cannot design the future; you must run “safe-to-fail” experiments to navigate the terrain. | Dave Snowden, Alicia Juarrero[2][19] |
| Epistemological | Subjective. A lack of understanding or a “mess.” | Learning & Synthesis. You use “systems” as learning tools to structure debate, dissolve problems, and increase understanding. | Peter Checkland, Russ Ackoff[12][20] |
| Relational | Non-Simulable. The failure of formal models. | Narrative. You must abandon the hope for a single “totalizing” model and use multiple narratives to bridge the gaps. | Robert Rosen, Tim Allen[21] |
References
[1] Dave Snowden.md [2] Dave Snowden.md [3] Alicia Juarrero.md [4] Alicia Juarrero.md [5] Alicia Juarrero.md [6] Humberto Maturana.md [7] Mike McMaster.md [8] Russ Ackoff.md [9] Russ Ackoff.md [10] John Warfield.md [11] John Warfield.md [12] Peter Checkland.md [13] OU Course Material.md [14] Relational Biologists - Robert Rosen Howard Pattee Dennis Noble.md [15] Relational Biologists - Robert Rosen Howard Pattee Dennis Noble.md [16] Tim Allen.md [17] Paul Cilliers.md [18] Niklas Luhmann.md [19] Dave Snowden.md [20] Russ Ackoff.md [21] Tim Allen.md