Message>...so we need some way to capture and relate categories by an efficient
method where definition is impossible.
Phil, I like this example: "categories" in those astral worlds that we can
enter only ***unconsciously***, and where, therefore, we
lose our ability even to ***define*** :-) --Mikhail
----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Henshaw
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex
Well, one of the most fascinating things about observation is rolled up in
that question. It turns out to be naturally difficult
to tell whether your data reflects behaviors of the environment or of your
method of collecting information. The point is that
observation is always a matter of dealing with 2 complexities each of which is
indescribably complex and neither of which can be
used as a general standard reference.
Both the process of the observer and the process observed are uncalculable,
and most particularly because they are real physical
processes, each displaying the behavior of the whole indescribable network of
distributed independent complex processes of nature
from which they arise, including all the features and scales of order we have
not yet found a way to observe in detail and have no
clue as to how to begin to describe! One of my favorites in that area is
molecular light, all the photons being emitted and
absorbed in particle interactions all the time. I understand it's real, but
molecular light is just another subject on a long list
of 'dark matters', for our understanding.
So...complexity means in part that not everything (actually not any physical
thing) can be abstractly defined and so we need some
way to capture and relate categories by an efficient method where definition is
impossible.
Phil
On 9/19/07, Mikhail Gorelkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent
property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of
the
> system
The problems with this statement are: 1) what I comprehended as the complex
thing some time ago, now maybe it's not so
completely.
Like walking in a big city: for a child (a less sophisticated, less
evolved, conceptual mind) the task is too complex to handle
properly, but after living here for a number of years it's the most natural
and simplest thing in the world. So, does
"complexity"
belong to this situation? or does it reflect our ability to comprehend it?
2) Some things are complex to me, but not, for
example,
to you. ? --Mikhail P.S. "Complexity" may be one of the "archetypes" of our
cognition.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
>> ...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ? --Mikhail
>
> The problem is whether or not complexity is an inherent property or an
> ascribed attribute. If it's an ascribed attribute, then the above is as
> good a definition as any... I prefer the concept of logical depth
> (primarily temporal aggregation); but that's effectively the same as a
> minimal description that works.
>
> The justification for assuming complexity is an ascribed attribute lies
> in parsing the word "complexity". Complexity talks about cause and
> effect and the "plaited" threads of cause/effect running through a
> system. The more threads there are and the more intertwined they are,
> the more complex the system. But, cause and effect are human cognitive
> constructs. Hence, complexity is an ascribed attribute of systems and,
> hence, can be defined in terms of descriptions and the efficacy of such.
>
> However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent
> property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the system.
> That doesn't imply independence from intra-system sub-descriptions (e.g.
> one constituent that describes other constituents, making that
> description a constituent of the system), only that there need not be a
> whole system description for it to be complex.
>
> If it's true that complexity is an inherent property, then definitions
> like "minimal description that works" is either irrelevant or is just a
> _measure_ of complexity rather than a definition of it. And if that's
> the case, it brings us back to complexity being an ascribed attribute
> rather than an inherent property. =><=
>
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty
> enough to want to force it upon anyone. -- H. L. Mencken
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFG8WGdZeB+vOTnLkoRAgJyAKDT//zvtrt/7o3R34hax7ozoiPYxgCgxi1c
> Vi8FwXZ8Y6femw37O6aJzAc=
> =lEhK
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
