Re: complexity...what exaclty is complex here?
DON MIKULECKY (MIKULECKY%VCUVAX.BITNET@letterbox.rl.ac.uk)
Fri, 6 Oct 1995 09:44:45 -0400
Don Mikulecky, MCV/VCU,Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu
reply to Bruce (Edmonds) long transmission:
Well, I have the "deja vu (sp?)" feeling all over again.
In the upper part you say what we say seems to have no practical value. Then
when I give a practical example...you agree with it. I'm confused.
As I have said in the past, since all I am engaged in are "practical"
questions...biomedical and ecological modelling, for example.....I find it hard
to sympathize with your statements about things not having practical value.
If we can use these ideas to redirect the reductionist approaches to these
problems, my life will have been well spent.
As to dergrees of complexity and counting infinite numbers of formalism...
this is practical? I fail to see where you are coming from.
I have repeatedly said that Casti, Kampis and others recognize degrees
of complexity among formalisms. You seize on a statement by Chaitin rather than
recognize the spirit in which it was made, namely support for some of
your ideas. I think we are going around in an infinite regress of our own
here and wonder for what purpose? I continue to study and thereby continue to
find Rosens approach, especially in the hands of Kampis extremely rich in
practical value. I would hope that sooner or later you will either
find time to deal with Rosen's wrtitings directly or stop using our hurried enca
psulations as a straw man.
Respectfully,
Don Mikulecky