Excellent! Yes, complement is a much more appropriate relation between the ideas than compete, I think. Thanks.
On 11/06/2017 11:08 AM, Robert Wall wrote: > > Actually, I think I said that Smolin's idea "competes" with Mareletto's. > That was sloppy; I meant that Smolin's theory can exist in the same space > with Constructor Theory as an explanatory system, but one that operates on > the macro scale (cosmological), especially with respect to initial conditions > (constraints) to our universe. Constructor Theory proposes a physical > universe at the microscale that could start here and unfold with new > constraints "evolving" from earlier ones. I see the heavier elements (e.g., > carbon ... gold) being generated from later generation suns as a possible > example of this. England seems to take this history into the abiogenesis by > appealing to the idea of metabolic homeostasis with the production of > dissipative systems being a likely outcome in this universe. Anyway, I should > have used the term "complements" versus "competes." -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
