Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Additional reading:
Cory Casanave's paper on Data
Access
work on ontology for biological signal pathways
[126]
ß parallel discussion in
generative methodology bead thread
Discussion on informational invariance and complexity
[342], [343], [344], [345], [346], [347], [348], [349], [350]
Hi, Paul!
I have seen a lot of cases where I felt a field was misnamed in a
way that causes confusion. (I don't have strong feelings in this case.)
However, it makes some sense to give in to established names. "Control
theory," for example, is a term that has confused many people outside that
field, and sent people into orbit with hysterical misunderstanding... but
that's the name they use.
Throwing out all the work by Per Bak and so on, and calling it
"complicatedness theory," would be a bit weird at this point.
Furthermore... "complicated" rather than
"complex" is more appropriate for systems which are born as Rube
Goldbergs, not for systems which are less complicated in terms of their
axiomatic basis.
You said:
Paul (Werbos) this is really critical to
the point I have been making over and over for two decades. You have not read, I assume, the careful and detailed analysis that Robert
Rosen made... I know from private discussions over the decades that you do not
read Rosen... and only look at Penrose's arguments on a surface. You have not addressed this careful
analysis.
It is true, that I haven't made a great study of Rosen. The
excerpts I have seen here and there were not enough to motivate me -- but I
understand that quotes out of context might not do full justice to his
thinking.
However, a definition of complex systems that explicitly rejects
all concepts of emergence does not raise my level of personal interest.