> "In spite of its various merits, AC suffers from one
> serious drawback. It is really a measure of randomness
> and randomness is not what we generally mean by complexity"
>
>Its amazing really how often this or something very close to it
>appears not only in popularizations but also in the primary
>literature. IMHO, this is wrongheaded and confused [I think I'm
>safe now :), Bill won't be offended since he is in very good
>company (Murray Gell-Mann, Paul Davies, John Casti etc etc)].
And I thought I was doing so well based on your comments above. snif.
>
>First, the implication of the above statement is that randomness
>is not complex, a very strange notion ;-).
Agreed, but I think we need to discuss this issue. It seems to me that
what we are seeking when we look for design is what Howard calls mindful
intention -- evidence that the particular juxtaposition of natural objects
and their interactions is planned. A pure random process is admittedly
complex, but not necessarily planned. You are quite right that we need to
distinguish between ordered and organized, so please keep working on the
definitions you have been promising for some time (and which my
interruptions are probably keeping you from :-))
>Also, and more importantly,
>when you look at precisely "...what we generally mean by complexity"
>you'll find that what they generally mean by complexity is what
>I, Chaitin, Yockey and others are calling organized. So, I think
>this confusion boils down to one of semantics. The sad thing is
>that the best definition of complexity might get tossed out simply
>on account of confusions about words.
Well, I'm not advocating that it be tossed out. I'm only suggesting that
additional criteria need to be brought to bear, because I believe putting
on blinders and using AC alone as a measure of complexity could lead to
absurd results.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)