http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/When-is-something-complex-tp525080p525095.html
> However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the
The problems with this statement are: 1) what I comprehended as the complex thing some time ago, now maybe it's not so completely.
Like walking in a big city: for a child (a less sophisticated, less evolved, conceptual mind) the task is too complex to handle
properly, but after living here for a number of years it's the most natural and simplest thing in the world. So, does "complexity"
belong to this situation? or does it reflect our ability to comprehend it? 2) Some things are complex to me, but not, for example,
to you. ? --Mikhail P.S. "Complexity" may be one of the "archetypes" of our cognition.
From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
>> ...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ? --Mikhail
>
> The problem is whether or not complexity is an inherent property or an
> ascribed attribute. If it's an ascribed attribute, then the above is as
> good a definition as any... I prefer the concept of logical depth
> (primarily temporal aggregation); but that's effectively the same as a
> minimal description that works.
>
> The justification for assuming complexity is an ascribed attribute lies
> in parsing the word "complexity". Complexity talks about cause and
> effect and the "plaited" threads of cause/effect running through a
> system. The more threads there are and the more intertwined they are,
> the more complex the system. But, cause and effect are human cognitive
> constructs. Hence, complexity is an ascribed attribute of systems and,
> hence, can be defined in terms of descriptions and the efficacy of such.
>
> However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent
> property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the system.
> That doesn't imply independence from intra-system sub-descriptions (e.g.
> one constituent that describes other constituents, making that
> description a constituent of the system), only that there need not be a
> whole system description for it to be complex.
>
> If it's true that complexity is an inherent property, then definitions
> like "minimal description that works" is either irrelevant or is just a
> _measure_ of complexity rather than a definition of it. And if that's
> the case, it brings us back to complexity being an ascribed attribute
> rather than an inherent property. =><=
>
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com> I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty
> enough to want to force it upon anyone. -- H. L. Mencken
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org>
> iD8DBQFG8WGdZeB+vOTnLkoRAgJyAKDT//zvtrt/7o3R34hax7ozoiPYxgCgxi1c
> Vi8FwXZ8Y6femw37O6aJzAc=
> =lEhK
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ============================================================
> 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>