Either of you finish the paper? Comments? -- Owen
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Carl Tollander <[email protected]> wrote: > Bit of a slog (an editor please!) but once you finess the jargon and get > your mind on the path it's rewarding (that said I'm only up to page 5). > Recommended so far, though multiverse and block-universe folks may become > unhappy. > > Just off-the-cuff, maybe a way to think about the arguments in the paper > is that the universe has an "n-cat number", s.t. you can explore more fully > spaces with lower n-cats and cannot approach fully exploring spaces with > higher n-cats, so high n-cat stuff exists in a very (very) sparse space > where transformations from one stuff to another is not smooth. > > I'm not convinced yet at this hour that said lumpiness is necessarily next > to can't-prestate-it-at-all, but I will read further, since I'm presidposed > to like the exploration-trumps-optimization perspective results of the > argument. > > > > On 1/11/12 11:57 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote: > > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.2069v1 why biology isn't just physics, > > -- rec -- > > > > ============================================================ > 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
