Re: Mind-expanding reading list LO3593

JOHNWFIELD@aol.com
Thu, 2 Nov 1995 07:32:22 -0500

Replying to LO3576 --

The Santa Fe Institute is mentioned and so is chaos theory, vis-a-vis
complexity. The Scientific American article on the Santa Fe Institute was
published in the June, 1995, issue of Scientific American.

As some readers already are painfully aware from my many comments about
it, I have been studying complexity for about 27 years, and have been
pouting for some time that the Santa Fe Institute and the chaos theorists
keep ignoring my wonderful work.

Finally, in order to get revenge, I have invented two ideas, which I would
like to share free with this list.

The first is the concept "supersumption". It is the conceptual opposite
of "subsumption". Subsumption, as you know, means to include within.
Presumed are two concepts A and B. B is subsumed within A means that B is
a part of A, perhaps integral, and perhaps throughly integrated, or
perhaps not. But at any rate it is subsumed within.

Supersumption means that B supersumes A; i.e., that without any known
justification, and in the face of previously-developed scientific
knowledge, someone chooses to take the broader concept and subsume it
within the narrower concept.

To say that chaos theory is complexity theory is to force chaos theory to
supersume complexity theory. To say that adaptive systems theory or,
alternatively, cellular automata theory supersumes complexity theory, is
to take the broader concept and subsume it within the narrower concepts.

For those who prefer metaphor, "one twig does not a forest make, nor
treble clefs a fugue".

Now with all the talk of Newton, does somebody want to supersume Newtonian
mechanics over relativity theory?

--
JOHN N. WARFIELD
Johnwfield@aol.com