Re: playing God
DON MIKULECKY (MIKULECKY@VCUVAX.BITNET)
Mon, 3 Apr 1995 09:24:08 -0400
Don Mikulecky, MCV/VCU,Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu
Reply to Cliff
Sounds like a bit of consensus forming here. In last Friday`s
discussion group(we have weekly discussions on these topics)
we also came to a similar conclusion about most of what calls
itself "complexity" research. It is a sophisticated, very
advanced, useful extension of what you have called systems
research. We see a need to deal with subdivisions of the
concept of complexity, and, to no one's surprise, base this
on Rosen's distinction between simple and complex systems.
The thing about a-life, etc. is that they still deal with
simulable models am
and by definition (Rosen's) therefore simple systems or
mechanisms. Rather than try to get the rest of the world
to adopt Rosen's distinction, it may be better to consider
levels of complexity. We would then reserve the most complex
category for self-referential systems that have a non-simulable
semantic component. Will that fly?
Best regards, Don Mikulecky