In that case Glenn is at least misapplying the example. And in that
case, would you (or any other) be so kind as to tell us what part or
parts of the world economy are I.C. and which also evolved without I.
Re: intell. des. and Berra's folly
Loren Haarsma (email@example.com)
Mon, 1 Jun 1998 11:19:44 -0400 (EDT)
> What is the difinition of Irreducible complexity according to Behe?
> If I remember correctly is a biological system composed of various
> indispensable andstratigically assembled parts. If any of these parts
> is missing the system will not function.
> Now. Can anybody think of a few things we can remove from the world
> economy and yet it will contuinue to function? If you can the answer
> is that the world economy is not I.C.
Think of the entire economy as analogous to the cell. It contains
irreducibly complex sub-systems. Some components are part of IC
sub-systems, some are not. Some components are vital to survival of the
whole, some are not.
Although changes in our economy are driven by intelligent agents, such a
system can be modelled by an algorythm with "autonomous agents" each
employing strategies to maximize some function of input variables. Could
such a model start from "simple" initial conditions and evolve into a
system with IC sub-systems? I haven't seen such work published, but my
guess is it could probably be done.
"in ipso enim vivimus et movemur et sumus sicut"
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com