Warning: Rant! Robert wrote:
> I still don't feel that I've got a straight answer to my question, > other than Doug's (which I suspect is the most accurate) and > Russ's (which I really hope isn't true). So let me try again: > once I've established that a phenomenon is emergent by using > a yet-to-be developed metric (Owen's formalism) or > philosophic enquiry (Nick's & other's approach) - then what? And a little later: > Merely an expression of a personal preference: if "there is no > point" is true, it tells me that emergence is and can only ever > be pure science. As a practitioner, I prefer my science applied And in between, bizarrely: > It's an interesting read - and the depressing thing is that it > shows how little the theory has progressed in 41 years > (41! count them!). Glen wrote: > A merely hypothetical claim that some thing _could_ be > used is inadequate. Centers of gravity are actually used; they effect > and affect actions (act-ions). To be clear about my stance, nothing > just is. Reality (if we have to use the concept) consists entirely of > actions, processes, verbs. There need be no nouns. Hence, unless a > hypothetical noun participates directly in a verb, we're free to ignore > it because it doesn't matter. It is inactive and, hence, unreal. > > Centers of gravity are useful and used. Hence, they exist. Doug quotes his parrots! Good heavens! I can understand a preference for application; I'm an engineer myself and only feel truly satisfied when scientific enquiry has come full circle and augmented the physical world in some manner, but what is it with the continuous sniping at curiosity, discussion, exploration of ideas? I'm sure I need not list examples of theory that lay dormant for years before filling some vital, practical niche. Why the exasperation with, at times almost hostility towards, the process that runs (necessarily, as the low-hanging fruit thins out) from curiosity, through philosophy, science and math, engineering to useful systems? Or relegating partial, developing fruit of the process to the realm of fantasy? A large part of what we're curious about turns out to be irrelevant, a large part of philosophy turns out to be useless, or simply wrong; much research is sterile. Sure, demand efficiency from these processes -- more, as one moves closer to practical implementation -- but how about cutting the people who engage in them *some* slack? What the hell? I mean, these aren't a bunch of crackpots spewing bunk. It's smart people grappling with something difficult that is not well understood by anybody, and it concerns a class of systems that touches on every aspect of our lives in vital ways. If there is the possibility of additional insight, any insight, how about some applause when people spend their own resources to advance their understanding, and share it for free as they go! Rikus ============================================================ 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
