Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life

[Howard Pattee <***>]

John,

I do not understand how I can respond substantively to this line of argument:

[Howard] Von Neumann?s fundamental question is: What is the threshold of complexity of a 
system that can evolve increasing complexity rather than degrade?

[John K] Rosen's view of complexity, as I read it, would make this a nonsensical question.

As I said to Judith: I have no problem with Bob defining complexity differently than von 
Neumann. They both make sense to me. But how can you claim that by one definition you can 
determine that another definition becomes nonsensical? Of course I agree that definitions 
may be incompatible, logically inconsistent, or just different, but by your form of 
argumentation you win just ?by definition.?

Or are you asserting that all of von Neumann?s thinking on the question of evolvability 
is actually nonsensical?

Howard