Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > Ann Racuya-Robbins wrote: >> Why does a law have to be simpler? What is simpler? I suppose that is >> the reason to be for complexity science that life appears to more >> likely move from simpler to more complex. >> > The most powerful computers in the world can only simulate microseconds > of the many body physics and electrostatics of a million atoms, which is > just a small part of a single cell. If there is no compression, or > simplification, there is no hope of grasping what happens in organisms.
It's not quite true that without compression or simplification, there is no hope of grasping what happens in organisms. Actually, this concept of compression is relatively new in the modeling world. Modeling, traditionally, consists of taking one concrete thing, in all its particular gory detail, and studying it side-by-side with some other concrete thing, in all its gory detail. Both things, the model and its referent are replete with the messy details of concrete existence, yet we can use one to learn about the other, no compression or simplification needed. In fact, one might say that this obsessive compulsive fixation on compression and distillation is a kind of mental disorder. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ 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
