Posted by
glen e. p. ropella-2 on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-comm-was-Re-FW-Re-Emergence-Seminar-BritishEmergence-tp3654051p3695399.html
Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 09-09-22 12:23 PM:
> Would you tell me why that is important. Biology isn't physics. Is the
> fact that you don't consider it physics a criticism of biology? Are you
> saying biology should be physics? I'm missing the point.
Wow. OK. Physics has one language for its hypothetical mechanisms and
biology uses a totally different language. That's what I'm saying.
> So what are you suggesting be done? Or am I still missing your point?
You are totally missing my point. Economics is expressed in a language
that is different from the language we use to express physics. The
language of biology is also different from that of physics.
I'm not suggesting anything be done. I'm defining complexity in
response to Miles' conjecture that SoPS may be more complex than
physical systems and in response to Jochen's suggestion that part of the
reason for the apparent complexity of SoPS lies in the informality of
the languages used to describe them.
Here's a recap:
Miles: Let SoPS be more complex than physical systems.
Miles: .: Adequate explanation of SoPS requires more models than that of
physical systems.
Miles: .: More effort is required to explain SoPS than physical systems.
Jochen: Perhaps SoPS are no more complex than physical systems, it's
just that they haven't arrived at formalisms for them, yet.
Me: SoPS are NOT necessarily more complex than physical systems, not
(solely) due to informality, but because complexity is a result of
circular causality and lexical mismatch.
That's it. That's the end of it. That's all there is to it.
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095,
http://agent-based-modeling.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