Nature magazine article. review

[James N Rose <***>]

Dear Judith,

Not sure why it's such a mystery.  The formulae that
co-mingle several 'random distribution' vectors are
de facto generators of niches (or, ala standard complexity
notions, 'attractor basins').

If the concern is that the math is 'neutral' to what
any specific qualia/characteristics are for the possible
niches, then the only thing missing is identification
of this or that bundle of vectors as being associable
with one or another niche qualia, where they can be shown
to interactively track/map one another.

Might be an interesting empirical way to be able
to conceptually move between tiers of qualia in
'Roseneanly complex' systems.

James





> Judith Rosen wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> There is an article that was published last year in Nature magazine about some
> ecology theories and models developed by two men; Hubbell and Bell. Neutrality
> Theory, it's being called. I read it because my oldest child had a paper to
> write and thought some of "Pop's stuff" (her name for her grandfather) might be
> applicable. She was right.
>
> I'm curious, before I infect the group with my own point of view, what some of
> the ecologists think. The link is here:
> http://www.nature.com/nsu/020527/020527-13.html
>
> I would also like to get contact info for Hubbell, if anyone knows how to
> achieve that?
>
> Judith