Hi Bo, you said to David M, "Yes, things are complicated but history has told us that complexity is the lack of the right explanation. Ref. the Ptolemaian cosmology's baffling complexity and Copernicus who made it wonderful simple."
Don't agree Bo, yes in your example (which is Pythagorean / Netwonian thru and thru - still ignores the 3-body problem and relativistic effects) a simple transform of axis from earth centerd to sun centred simplified the baffling motions. But there is no "complexity" in this example - just simple geometry - perfect circles. The second explanation is higher quality, but the level of complexity is unchanged. Complexity is not in general simplified by the right explanation. Complexity - two-way causality as David's example suggests - really exists and is represented by the emergent patterns or "attractors" - but isn't "explained" away. We have an expression in my industry - "the conservation of complexity" - in solving information management problems we always use "simpifications" but that doesn't simplify the problem it just simplifies the incomplete solution - reality (and reality including sentient beings - like humans) remains complex. Ian Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
