here's the url for RS's article he just cited from the neat
online journal "complexity int'l", sep 2001
http://life.csu.edu.au/ci/vol09/standi09/
I may write up some reactions to the paper.
I would be interested in other views on emergence. here is
one set of article also making the rounds by laughlin, nobel
prize winning physicist.
reductionistic particle physicists are being challenged by solid
state physicists for the definitive metaphor of reality.
on laughlin (nobel prize winner) & pines' shot across the
bow of particle & reductionistic physics
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/04/science/physical/04SQUA.html
the theory of everything, by laughlin, proc. nat. acad. sci, vol 97 #1
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/1/28.pdf
the middle way, by laughlin, PNAS, vol 97 #1
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/1/32.pdf
RS abstract
On complexity and emergence
Standish, R. K.
Abstract
Numerous definitions for complexity have been proposed over
the last half century, with little consensus achieved on
how to use the term. A definition of complexity is supplied
here that is closely related to the Kolmogorov Complexity
and Shannon Entropy measures widely used as complexity
measures, yet addresses a number of concerns raised against
these measures. However, the price of doing this is to
introduce context dependence into the definition of
complexity. It is argued that such context dependence is an
inherent property of complexity, and related concepts such
as entropy and emergence. Scientists are uncomfortable with
such context dependence, which smacks of subjectivity, and
this is perhaps the reason why little agreement has been
found on the meaning of these terms.
Received on Mon Nov 25 2002 - 03:03:41 PST