here's the url for RS's article he just cited from the neat online journal "complexity int'l", sep 2001
http://life.csu.edu.au/ci/vol09/standi09/ I may write up some reactions to the paper. I would be interested in other views on emergence. here is one set of article also making the rounds by laughlin, nobel prize winning physicist. reductionistic particle physicists are being challenged by solid state physicists for the definitive metaphor of reality. on laughlin (nobel prize winner) & pines' shot across the bow of particle & reductionistic physics http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/04/science/physical/04SQUA.html the theory of everything, by laughlin, proc. nat. acad. sci, vol 97 #1 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/1/28.pdf the middle way, by laughlin, PNAS, vol 97 #1 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/1/32.pdf RS abstract On complexity and emergence Standish, R. K. Abstract Numerous definitions for complexity have been proposed over the last half century, with little consensus achieved on how to use the term. A definition of complexity is supplied here that is closely related to the Kolmogorov Complexity and Shannon Entropy measures widely used as complexity measures, yet addresses a number of concerns raised against these measures. However, the price of doing this is to introduce context dependence into the definition of complexity. It is argued that such context dependence is an inherent property of complexity, and related concepts such as entropy and emergence. Scientists are uncomfortable with such context dependence, which smacks of subjectivity, and this is perhaps the reason why little agreement has been found on the meaning of these terms.