Return-path: <HANSS@staff.sepa.tudelft.nl>
Delivery-receipt-to: hanss@sepa.tudelft.nl
Received: from zon.sepa.tudelft.nl by Gems.VCU.EDU (PMDF V4.3-13 #8240)
id <01HSS1XX4BCG8X4YGF@Gems.VCU.EDU>; Wed, 12 Jul 1995 10:08:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tbmail.sepa.tudelft.nl by zon.sepa.tudelft.nl with SMTP
(1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA24187; Wed, 12 Jul 1995 16:00:26 +0200
Received: From ZONDISK/MAIL-WORKQUEUE by tbmail.sepa.tudelft.nl via
Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.950712162648.320; 12 Jul 95 16:27:46 +0500
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 16:26:46 +0100 (MET)
From: Hans-Cees Speel <HANSS@sepa.tudelft.nl>
Subject: Re: Further comments on complexity
To: DON MIKULECKY <MIKULECKY@Gems.VCU.EDU>
Reply-to: hanss@sepa.tudelft.nl
Message-id: <MAIL-QUEUE-101.950712162646.288@staff.sepa.tudelft.nl>
X-Mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2)
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
Don, I have a problem with the PCP list. Can you forward my messages
to it? That woulsd be very helpfull; HC
> Please focus on the content and not my horrible style.
will do
> > I would say that it is rosen [as far as I understand what he is
saying]> > that is using another language than the people from for
instance the> > Santafe-I. Because that language shows us things the
Santafe institute> > people do not look at, he sees thing as more
complicated that the> > SF-people.
> Yes, that's true.
> > This is precisely what Bruce is talking about, saying that the
language
> > of description is one of the clues as to why we find things complex.
> > I see no other problem here than that one person says: 'you haven't
> > used my stuff in your story'. Unless you show why the other
should do> > that, you are not communicating, but arguing, and that
doesn't help> > anyone.
> > In my view Bruce's point is new to this list and should be elaborated
on> > a great deal.
> Here I strongly disagree. Bruce seems to be interested in
"measuring" > complexity (see his home page) which is in total violation
of the idea > that complex systems involve non-computable elements as
a key ingredient.
I think this is the key point; you see the complex system as having
complexity of its own. As I understand Bruce, he does not, and says
that the language you look at it with, determines the complexity.
As to how much Bruce wantsa to measure complexity, I do not know,
you should ask him. I wonder however if to measure and to compute is
the same. I think you can measure according to an agreed standard,
which can be used to compute. As I see it you say that the standard of
the SF-people is not accurate for computing lifes complexity?
He does make the point that you cannot measure complexity until you
have closely defined what you will measure. This is the same point you
are making as I see it, since you say that the SF-language is not
capable for this.
It seems to me that it is usefull here to keep two claims separate:
-complexity is measurable
-measurable or not, complexity depends on the language you use
> Yes, and if I live and work another 59 years it might get better.
Lets hope so:-)
Meanwhile,
> I do the best I can as a person trained in physiology wading in very
> deep waters outside my "legitimate" realm of expertise.
In these matters evryone is a layman, I suppose.
greetings
Hans-Cees
Theories come and go, the frog stays [F. Jacob]
-------------------------------------------------------
|Hans-Cees Speel School of Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and management
|Technical University Delft, Jaffalaan 5 2600 GA Delft PO Box 5015 The Netherlan
ds
|telephone +3115785776 telefax +3115783422 E-mail hanss@sepa.tudelft.nl
HTTP://www.sepa.tudelft.nl/~afd_ba/hanss.html featuring evolution and memetics!