Re: Relational "Space" - Ulanowicz works

[John M <***>]

Tim, you ask the million $ question.
 >what is that complex thing of which it is '"too"
> redux-scientific'?<
I have some hint-ideas, but don't know. Do you?
What I know is that it is something wholistic, not model-based conclusional.
If we start allowing concessions, we will be eaten up by conventional
science.
See the mixed pickle of SFI. See the 'levels of cxty', calculative
'theories', the equational concepts of model-cut limited values, all what we
(RR) try to overstepp in a new view which hasn't been foramlized so far to
clear and well expressed principles (only trends/hints/ideas).
One reason why I try to evade the 'complexity' word.
It is too tempting.

John M


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: Relational "Space" - Ulanowicz works


> JohnM, Dan,
>
> JohnM,
> I mostly defer to Dan's comments since he is familiar with all this, but I
> also see some possible connection to Rosennean complexity. Maybe the way
to
> look at such a quantitative analysis is to ask: what would be the set of
> possible complex natural systems which would accede to such an analysis?
In
> other words, maybe we need to ask that if this is '"too"
redux-scientific',
> as you say, then what is that complex thing of which it is '"too"
> redux-scientific'?
>
> Dan,
> SKIP