On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We are arguing past each other.
That was the impression I had, yes. > The reference you cite talks only about "complicatedness" --- as in, the > opposite of simplicity. In other words, the common usage of "complexity". > > This has nothing to do with the very specific thing that is called > "complexity" in the sense of "complex systems" --- the things that are > studied all the time by people such as those at the Santa Fe Institute: Complexity in the complex systems sense means there is no analytical shortcut from the behavior of the parts to the behavior of the whole, so that to know the behavior of the whole requires detailed simulation or physical experiment. This phenomenon is ubiquitous in all the examples I've given. > The point is that there is a difference between the two that is an absolute > killer: you can use human ingenuity to overcome most complicated systems, > but it is easy to cross the line and try to build something that, in fact, > is *complex* (technical sense) ..... and if you cross that line, you can > apply your ingenuity till the end of the universe and you will still have > made zero progress. You would agree the human brain, at least, is complex? Yet it was developed before the end of the universe, by trial and error - which is one of the tools in the repertoire of human engineers. ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
