To be fair, Rosen was addressing the question of "what is life",
rather than "what is complexity", per se. His notions, whilst interesting, do
differ in important ways from what most complexity science researchers
are talking about. Also being cloaked in the language of category
theory, they are difficult to grok for the average scientist who have
not been exposed to such concepts. Bruno can empathise with this,
having a similar problem with modal logic.


On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 03:42:16PM -0500, John Mikes wrote:
> Dear Russell,
> I gave up on Tipler more than a dacade ago for reasons you touched, and so
> on 'omega point' (as 'idealistic' - a term I do not use anymore). A
> question: do you appreciate "the science of complexity" as reasonable, in a
> situation we id not get through to even outline at our present level? -
> "MY" usage of complexity is that of the indinite everything, of which we
> don't even guess a thing. It would be like solving functions with
> unidentified 'uncountable' variables. I borrowed the term from Robert Rosen
> and am not sure if I missed his idea, or just continued it. Anyway my
> 'infinite' complexity does not qualify for being subject to "science".
> Best for 'your' summer
> John Mikes


Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics
University of New South Wales

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to