On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 03:51:08PM -0700, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > > What does lexical mismatch have to do with complexity? Well, I've > explained that, too. But I'll try again. a) lexical mismatch is > necessary but not sufficient for the generation of ontological > complexity. Circular causality is also required. b) lexical mismatch > results in ontological complexity when one part of the system applies an > operator, formulated in a language that is different from that in which > the mechanism is formulated. > > The part of the system that is applying the operator uses the > inaccurate/abstracted results of the operator as part of its mechanism > (as when a bunny rabbit misinterprets the behavior of a wolf). Hence, > both languages participate in the construction of the system as a whole. > > Complexity means "plaited", consisting of interwoven parts. The two > languages (constructing the system) are the interwoven parts. If you > only use a _single_ language and all elements in the system can be > reduced to that single language, then it is a simple (not complex) system. >
I still don't follow why circular causality is required, although it is an interesting class of systems. So long as the two languages are lexically mismatched, that suffices, as there are behaviours (eg flocking) inexpressible in the reduced language. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [email protected] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ 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
