Stuart Kauffman
Locked
 
|
Hola:
Did you watch this? Reinventing the Sacred: Science, Faith and Complexity http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1380403261776709885 104 minutos Muchos éxitos, Alfredo ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Alfredo, Thanks. Wow, I’m sorry trying to talk about my work has
been a struggle over language, somehow, but you could hardly ask for a better
recommendation for it than Kauffman’s numerous rigorous and compelling reasons
why a new approach fitting his problem statement like mine does is needed. If
anyone knows people in the larger Santa Fe community that might be interested
in successful applications for the world Kauffman painted, locating good answerable
questions about physical system evolutionary processes by direct study of them,
please pass this on to them. It’s the accumulative creativity of processes throughout
the universe, not deducible in any reasonable approximation by any known kind
of general laws or language. It’s how natural form is continually changing
in new improbably creative ways and presented to us as an integrated record of inexplicable
emergent systems combining countless “pre-adapted” features which no
means of guesswork would ever have identified as having local opportunistic value.
It’s that intractable distributed historiosity of complex organizational
developments that displays the need for a new technique of learning about them lacking
any means to realistically represent them or what they are doing. What seems
possible is a tractable mathematical historiology of developmental system design
that allows you to at least begin a rigorous exploration of the individual design
and development of physical systems themselves, directly. I even like his reverence for the discovery that coming to grips
with this apparent true form of nature that has been hidden in sight from us
for so long calls for more than the normal level of rethinking, our ideas of
reality, our ideas of what’s sacred. Still, even after proving over
and over that we can’t represent natural form with any language, he still
didn’t yet seem to see that the perfect representations already exist,
and all we need is to learn was how to study them. The opportunity to make
the switch away from representing form with universal laws and math is finding a
method of diagnostic exploration of the systems of interest themselves. As I’ve mentioned before, www.synapse9.com/PICS.htm my method
should even work interactively with exploratory modeling at some point, because
it points to where systemization is occurring and changing, and maybe reveals interesting
“cybernetic body parts” to project from the real phenomena and use in
definitional form. Reconstructing the evolutions of natural form can start from tracing
the temporary conservation of their local laws ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ It’s
a present useful approach to studying real individual systems, at least if you
accept looking for simple questions first, and then looking around for others. Best
"it's not finding what people say interesting, but
finding the interest in what they say" From:
[hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Alfredo
Covaleda Hola: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |