On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 08:55:29PM +0200, Günther Greindl wrote: > > But, as said above, it seems that RR defines mechanism differently. This > is of course very unfortunate, as it will have people talking past each > other. Unfortunate also because mechanism is indeed a word which can be > given a precise, mathematical meaning. >
Is this in fact the case? When I read "What is Life", my idea of mechanism was still the same (Turing computability), but felt that the "Game of Life" was a counter example to his claims (GoL has multiple inconsistent models). I'm still proposing to write a critique of Chu and Ho's recent Artificial Life paper along somewhat these lines, but I'm stuck evolving fuzzy inference systems for now (and I have some mutual information data mining work stacked up behind it). Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
