That may be true, but it misses the point I was making, which was a response to Richard's lament about the seeming lack of any generality from one complex system to the next. The fact that Feigenbaum's constants describe complex systems of different kinds is remarkable because it suggests an underlying order among systems that are described by different equations. It is not unreasonable to imagine that in the future we will develop a much more robust mathematics of complex systems.
--- On Thu, 7/3/08, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Nevertheless, generalities among different instances > of complex systems have been identified, see for instance: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feigenbaum_constants > > To be sure, but there are also plenty of complex systems > where > Feigenbaum's constants don't arise. I'm not > saying there aren't > theories that say things about more than one complex system > - clearly > there are - only that there aren't any that say > nontrivial things > about complex systems in general. > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
