Ray, I do not accept your proclamations of perfect knowledge and understanding. I agree with Mike S. Ray,
You may carry on seeking adherents to your view of reality without my further attempts at discussing alternative views. You are the oracle, it appears. If you believe that a human can comprehend boundless reality, you are not alone! 80% plus have the spirit in the gene. No boundary has ever been evidenced; big bang may be part of a big bounce of a universe, and many cosmologists including Martin Rees think infinite multiverses are likely. You blow off The Sante Fe Institute, The New England Complexity Institute, and others globally. OK, as you can't help it. May the force be with you. Steve On Sep 14, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Ray Harrell wrote: > The word complexity springs from the root meaning a layered braid. It > implies nothing beyond the inability of an observer or user to do something > with that braid. As they learn to use it, it becomes less complex without > change except in the mind of the user/observer. My point is that its > ambiguity means so many different things as to be a useless concept in the > description of something external to ourselves. > > Complexity is not a description of a state of nature but speaks to the > competence of the human mind observing it. Nothing is complex if you > understand it, comprehend its structure and know how to use it. The problem > is the mind, not nature. Nothing is outside nature but systems are > constructs of the human mind observing a part of the universe. Although > the word/symbol "Universe" is a English/human construct the reality it names > is beyond a projection of the human body and is the ground from which the > human body itself interacts and conceives and springs. The religious > concept of God shares a similar problem. God is a symbol from humans but > what it describes can only accurately described as the greatest of mysteries > because it is beyond our language, our minds and our experience. (But > although a parallel problem of complexity, it is not the same since the > Universe does not include what we call consciousness and relatability.) > There are no constructs that we recognize that are not bounded by the > limitations of our minds. Lowering complexity means that we move our > understanding and virtuosity forward. It means little or nothing for the > universe for or as a description of the external universe. That does not > mean that the spiritual projection from our minds does not have some > corollary external to ourselves. It just means that we have no hope of > understanding it if it is so. > > REH > > From: futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca > [mailto:futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca] On Behalf Of Steve Kurtz > Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 6:34 AM > To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] OMG! OMG! Joe Stiglitz is a > SOCIOLIST > > No. Natural systems are examples of complexity. They overshoot, test then > current limits, retreat as conditions change, and can undershoot. Control is > a flexible and imperfect attempt when intentionally sought. The current > parameters of the situation continuously control each other in my systemic > view. Humans are not outside the system. > > Steve > > On Sep 14, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Ray Harrell wrote: > > > Do you believe alignment and balance is the same as control? > > REH > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
