> Why we want to measure complexity? So we can characterize and talk about complexity and complex systems. Complexity can have many meanings, but here I'm taking it to be a quantifiable property of a system that essentially describes the density of causal links, chains, loops and their capacity to change, even if it's difficult to measure.
> It make us try to understand before acting and that way > we are undertrained/naïve when we need to > act before understanding (before we can write a few > lines of text about what we are sensing). I'm not sure I follow this. Measuring complexity makes us try to understand before acting???? > A small number of papers comes from chemistry experts > We, chemist was always working with real objects :) and > spending a lot of money changing real world... Which is an interesting field to look at for inspiration about dynamical computational systems if you don't get too bogged down in the details of chemistry itself. That's why I liked the Fontana paper so much. It basically abstracted out all of the physical aspects and started from the premise of transformation (i.e. lambda calculus) and proceeded to show how it can be used to generate complex networks, some of which can self-repair meaning if the network is broken by some of the elements being removed or damaged, they will be regenerated. wes _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
