Young but distant gallaxies
Locked
1234
1234
Re: Young but distant gallaxies
 
|
Günther,
Examining the English language, reductionism is an ingrained concept. For example, there are only two kinds of people in the world. Me and you (you being the collective you all, akin to the French vous). For the literalists out there, I am being somewhat sarcastic. Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Günther Greindl > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 8:34 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies > > Hi, > > > This doesn't mean strictly remaining with restraints > belonging under > > the heading of that horrible word "reductionism". > > Why do you think that the word is horrible? (be specific please ;-) > > Cheers, > Günther > > -- > Günther Greindl > Department of Philosophy of Science > University of Vienna > [hidden email] > > Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ > Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ > > > ============================================================ > 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 ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant gallaxies
|
|
You might not have been sarcastic enough, Ken. I fear that we are about to be launched on a round of non-specific philosophical verbiage about reductionism.
Oh, what the heck. Let me help kick this one off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism Or, better yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron_(cosmology) Gag. </sarcasm> --Doug On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Kenneth Lloyd <[hidden email]> wrote: Günther, ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant gallaxies
|
|
Read my e-mail more carefully.
Jack
============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant gallaxies
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
To Gunther
I don't think the word is horrible. Note the
quotes around the word in my e-mail.
Jack
============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant gallaxies
|
|
In reply to this post by Günther Greindl
To Gunther:
I dont think the word is horrible. Please note the quotes around the word in my e-mail. Jack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Günther Greindl" <[hidden email]> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies Hi, > This doesn't mean strictly remaining with restraints belonging under the > heading of that horrible word "reductionism". Why do you think that the word is horrible? (be specific please ;-) Cheers, Günther -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [hidden email] Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ ============================================================ 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 ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant gallaxies
|
|
Hi, I have been trying to figure out what my position on reductionism might be, but I am running into problems. Does reductionism mean a belief that the best strategy is always to analyze complex things in terms of simpler components (with, I presume, a small number of irreducible parts)? Or is it a belief that everything in nature is nothing more than a sum of simple components? --John On 9/5/08 12:13 PM, "Jack Leibowitz" <[hidden email]> wrote: To Gunther: ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant gallaxies
|
|
In reply to this post by Paul Paryski
No problem. The question for any good science of emergence
is often whether you’re mad enough!
Emergence is something we notice as the ‘madness’
of nature herself, in doing things without having a prior rule to follow, after
all. The emergence question I was raising in response to
Nick’s question was about the emergence of contradictions in
science. We tolerate accumulations of them, and may make individual
adjustments to theory as we go, but then may get to an impasse and be forced to
expand our thinking in a more general way occasionally…
It may have been a little off point as I didn’t
have the prior reference, and as Owen’s response seemed to be more
direct. I think you guys generally don’t take me seriously because
you don’t see the problems my work is a response to. I
find emergence far more comprehendible when treating time as an accumulative
processes of change rather than as a line of points on a scale projected by an
equation, a process rather than a location. That makes me
also drop the idea that any physical process is composed of our information
about it. Physical things are generally ever so much
richer in features than any form of information could ever replace.
That’s why I need to refer to the individual developments of
systems themselves as what my techniques is designed to shed light on ,
identified as developmental events with key information pointers for where to
look their functional organization. Phil From:
[hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email] My apologies
to Phil. My e-mail was intended only for Jack L. Paul ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant gallaxies
|
|
In reply to this post by Jack Leibowitz
Jack,
Well, there's a couple other parts of conversation style in a forum like this. How people converse, mixing all kinds of personal and cultural banter with science ideas, and the potential of our fluid imaginations to conjure images and associations, is distinctly different in kind from any physical system. Then there's our subject and its duality, the use of science as a set of controlled tools trying to find how to begin to understand some the uncontrolled processes on which both our survival and interest in life rely. I really think that 1996 essay of Rosen's I mentioned got to a very useful and easily understood side of his objection to science, that restricting science to the study of convergent sequences misses the divergent ones. Divergent processes seem to include many ones you observe that don't contain any information about what they're going to run into until they do, and so 'learn as they go'. Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf Of Jack Leibowitz > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:11 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies > > Are you happy with that prescription? It seems to me that when we talk > about physical phenomena and explanation- or attempts at same- we > needn't > discard the basic idea of a scientific statement: consistency with what > is > known and predictability and falsifiability for what is claimed. > Otherwse, > we can substitute God for all the other words, such as emergence, etc. > > I don't mean to discredit concepts such those related to "emergence", > etc. > Some beautiful possibilities may reside in that direction. But I hope > it > doesn't suggest to proponents that we can abandon being scientists and > join > the ranks of those not similarly constrained by understandings about > what > makes Science so fabulously successful. > > This doesn't mean strictly remaining with restraints belonging under > the > heading of that horrible word "reductionism". > > By this time, I think , I have overstayed my welcome. I do respect the > good > things the group does. > > Jack > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carl Tollander" <[hidden email]> > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <[hidden email]> > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 3:33 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies > > > > An emergent idea is one relatively few people are paying attention > to. > > If we indulged in specifics, the ideas would cease to be emergent. > > > > So I think its kind of like we're using averted vision. A post that > > points out an > > emergent idea is not necessarily inviting a collective hot needle of > > inquiry > > on that idea, but instead is illuminating a potential cloud of nearby > > ones. > > Sometimes it also takes a bit of noise injection to figure out what's > > being > > discussed, so you see those kinds of posts too. > > > > So, if you are new, the conversation seems to jump around a lot. > Takes > > a bit of getting used to. The main thing is to not think of the list > > primarily > > (though it does happen from time to time) a coherent narrative, > > but as a part of a larger environment of thought, readings and off > line > > discussion. > > > > Carl > > > > Robert Holmes wrote: > >> Jack - > >> > >> First rule of FRIAM: no one talks about specifics. > >> Second rule of FRIAM: no one talks about specifics > >> > >> Robert > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Jack Leibowitz > <[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > >> > >> As a new correspondent in the FRIAM family, would someone please > >> explain, > >> with specifics, what particular emergent ideas are being > referred > >> to in the > >> paragraph below. > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Phil Henshaw" <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >> To: <[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>>; "'The Friday Morning > Applied > >> Complexity > >> Coffee Group'" <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:17 AM > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies > >> > >> > >> >I guess that's the puzzle, since we can't use triangulation to > >> measure > >> > distance for stars we use various corollaries for age to > measure > >> distance > >> > and of distance to measure age, according to the equations > that > >> have > >> > seemed > >> > to make sense so far. That the equations have not been making > >> sense in > >> > several ways, like needing the invention of dark energy and > dark > >> matter to > >> > bend them for other discrepancies, is what science keeps > doing, > >> adding > >> > "epicycles" on old theory until some complete impasse > arises... and > >> > someone > >> > finally has to think up something completely new. If others > >> don't come > >> > to > >> > the same impasse, like not seeing that emergence *must* be a > local > >> > individual developmental process and so not asking *how*, no > >> amount of > >> > good > >> > solutions for the problem will be recognized. > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: [hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]> > >> [mailto:[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>] On > >> >> Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson > >> >> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:09 PM > >> >> To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >> >> Subject: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies > >> >> > >> >> Dumb question for you cosmologists to chew over: > >> >> > >> >> How can they be so far away and yet so young? Or, to put it > even > >> >> dumber, > >> >> are there parts of the Universe that are so far away that > they > >> havent > >> >> happened yet? > >> >> > >> >> I guess this is a question about scales of distance vis a vis > >> scales of > >> >> time. > >> >> > >> >> Nick > >> >> > >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson > >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > >> >> Clark University ([hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >> > Friam mailing list > >> >> > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >> >> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > End of Friam Digest, Vol 63, Issue 3 > >> >> > ************************************ > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> ============================================================ > >> >> 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ============================================================ > >> > 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 > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> ============================================================ > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > >> > >> ============================================================ > >> 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 > > > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 > > > > > > ============================================================ > 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 ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant gallaxies
|
|
In reply to this post by John Kennison
Well, maybe one very general way is to say reductionism is
representing that things are well represented by our information at hand (i.e. using
our information to substitute for things rather than to refer to them, ‘reducing’
things to our information about them). Our best information is generally that
our information is limited, and significantly under represents the phenomena we
observe . From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John F. Kennison
To Gunther: ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Thanks Phil. I also consider myself slightly mad (hopefully interesting at times); who wouldn't be living in the present state of the world. When I was in the UN, we used to say, when speaking of the complexities of developing nations, "if you are not confused, you are not thinking clearly."
And as an environmentalist, I also tend to analyze without resort to mathematics and look for trends and observed emergence. cheers Paul ************** Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com. (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014) ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant gallaxies
|
|
In reply to this post by Jack Leibowitz
Jack,
ok, I phrased my question badly. To avoid any nitpicking ;-), I would like to know what you mean by this: "This doesn't mean strictly remaining with restraints belonging under the heading of that horrible word "reductionism". Cheers, Günther ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant gallaxies
|
|
In reply to this post by John Kennison
John F. Kennison wrote:
> I have been trying to figure out what my position on reductionism > might be, but I am running into problems. Does reductionism mean a > belief that the best strategy is always to analyze complex things in > terms of simpler components (with, I presume, a small number of > irreducible parts)? Or is it a belief that everything in nature is > nothing more than a sum of simple components? Well, I'll jump in. I can't say what "reductionism" actually means. But I can say what I mean when I say it and how I interpret it when I hear it. When I say it, I mean that reductionism is a _fetish_ for or zealous commitment to reduction/analysis, beyond the practical. When I _hear_ the word, though, I tend to make a less extreme inference. Reductionism and reductionist seem to be used to refer to the very analytic processes we revere and reward in all our most successful humans. And although it's often slung as an epithet, I tend to think it's a compliment, albeit a back-handed one. It seems to have become a term we use for careful thinkers. You only get called "reductionist" if you keep nit-picking until everyone's mad at you. [grin] Up until that point, reduction is always considered a pretty good method. When people are happy with it, they call it "parsimony" or "elegance" or some other nice word. Then when you piss them off, they call it "reductionism". That's why I usually end up saying something like "a little bit reductionist", which is a silly phrase if you put too much emphasis on the denotation... kinda like being a little bit pregnant. Stick to reduction for a little too long, and you're "a little bit reductionist". Commit your entire existence to it and you're a zealot. As usual, people tend to draw stark and false dichotomies. Nobody's actually a reductionist and nobody's actually a holist. We just like to pidgeon-hole people and their statements because it makes our lives easier. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and quasars
|
|
In reply to this post by John Kennison
John,
I tend to be a Prigoginist, see: End of Certainty,
Ilya Prigogine. I suggest you consider the case for thermodynamic
non-equilibrium and the problem it creates for reductionism. Some of
us have come to understand complexity by modeling wavelet perturbations on
temporally extended, recurrent, non-linear network graphs. The results
have been very enlightening.
Caveat: such results have been met with great skepticism,
if not total disbelief, within the FRIAM community.
Ken
============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and quasars
|
|
Me, I'm a simulationist. I run these large, complex population mobility ABMs in the utmost confidence that I can make the output support whichever claim happens to be the current politically expedient one.
Pragmatism trumps vague Reductionism every time. --Doug On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Kenneth Lloyd <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant gallaxies
|
|
In reply to this post by Günther Greindl
I meant quite the opposite of discrediting reductionism. It has been the
basis of progress in modern science. It doesn't preclude attempts at unification , given the information that has been acquired in the structure of matter down to the quantum level. That work continues, as well as research in the other direction, especially in cosmology and modern field theories-- in which progress has also been made possible from evidence of the sort coming from what some might derisively call the reductionist point of view. This is a large story, in which, as aa scholar in the philosophy of sciences, you need no instruction, I'm sure. All best, Jack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Günther Greindl" <[hidden email]> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies Jack, ok, I phrased my question badly. To avoid any nitpicking ;-), I would like to know what you mean by this: "This doesn't mean strictly remaining with restraints belonging under the heading of that horrible word "reductionism". Cheers, Günther ============================================================ 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 ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and quasars
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
I don't know whether I'm being addressed. Please
assume that some others among us are familiar with Prigogine
,etc.
I'm bowing out of all of this preening. Please
exclude me from the e mail list hereafter.
No offense intended. There seems to be nothing one
can say that doesn't invite intellectual opportunism here. End
Jack
============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and quasars
|
|
None taken.
We prefer the descriptive "Mental Masturbation", btw. Cheers, --Doug On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Jack Leibowitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and quasars
|
|
In reply to this post by Jack Leibowitz
Jack,
I'm not sure I catch your meaning re: preening. I
really don't see why this would be, or is, the case.
Reductionism has a place at thermodynamic
equilibrium. It just becomes problematic at non-equilibrium - with
irreversible systems. I disagree with that there is intellectual
opportunism. There is an opportunity to share real information
regarding the way complexity in systems works, which I thought was the basis for
this forum. If you are not persuaded by Prigogine, that's
OK.
Of course I may be wrong. Maybe it is a game of
intellectual one-upsmanship to some contributors. In that case, I wasn't
smart enough to catch on to the game being played. I don't resonate much
with philosophical dialog - but some in the group seem to enjoy such
sparring. I find the study, modeling and simulation of complex systems
challenging enough without philosophizing or game playing. But when the
phenomenon can be replicated experimentally, and patterns identified, that's
reward enough for me. Unfortunately, that study takes some hard, boring
work which is how I characterize what I do, although
some might find it more fun to pontificate, speculate and
fantasize. Far be it from me to stand in the way of the enjoyment of
others.
I get the impression sometimes that people would rather
enjoy keeping complexity mysterious - even magical. Not so
for me. Complexity has become just another phenomenon that can be
understood by us mere mortals. While it loses it fantastic
qualities, not so its beauty and elegance.
Ken
============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and quasars
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
Doug - I think I see the tip of your tongue poking out through a hole in your cheek! :^)
My version is: "We run these large complex XXX yyyy ZZZs in the utmost confidence that no matter what the results are, the decision makers will claim that they support whatever happens to be the current political expedient one." ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Young but distant gallaxies
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2
Thanks Phil, and all who responded. I enjoyed reading it all. I intend to read Prigogine --and instead of having a"position" on reductionism, I'll aim for a healthy sense of its strengths and weaknesses. It seems that, following Phil's description, below, there would be theoretical and practical reductionism. For example, suppose we can understand a topic by using a function F of well-understood quantities. Then we can, in theory, reduce that topic to the well-understood quantities. But if the function is chaotic and requires exact, rather than approximate values for these quantities, it might be of little practical use.
________________________________________ From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw [[hidden email]] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 2:54 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies Well, maybe one very general way is to say reductionism is representing that things are well represented by our information at hand (i.e. using our information to substitute for things rather than to refer to them, ‘reducing’ things to our information about them). Our best information is generally that our information is limited, and significantly under represents the phenomena we observe . From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John F. Kennison Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 2:08 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies Hi, I have been trying to figure out what my position on reductionism might be, but I am running into problems. Does reductionism mean a belief that the best strategy is always to analyze complex things in terms of simpler components (with, I presume, a small number of irreducible parts)? Or is it a belief that everything in nature is nothing more than a sum of simple components? --John On 9/5/08 12:13 PM, "Jack Leibowitz" <[hidden email]> wrote: To Gunther: I dont think the word is horrible. Please note the quotes around the word in my e-mail. Jack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Günther Greindl" <[hidden email]> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies Hi, > This doesn't mean strictly remaining with restraints belonging under the > heading of that horrible word "reductionism". Why do you think that the word is horrible? (be specific please ;-) Cheers, Günther -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [hidden email] Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ ============================================================ 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 ============================================================ 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 ============================================================ 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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |