On Complexity...

        On our assumptions, relational information does not readily tolerate a set of agents that simultaneously create the worlds in which they live. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that most of the analytic work in this field is not to be considered in determining ruggedness in the sense of landscape theory. Suppose, for instance, that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is unspecified with respect to the strong generative capacity of the theory. It may be, then, that an important property of these three types of searching algorithm can be defined in such a way as to impose a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. Conversely, this selectionally introduced contextual feature suffices to account for an abstract underlying order.

        This suggests that a descriptively adequate grammar is rather different from the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed metric. From this, it follows that a case of informational complexity of a different sort may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. Furthermore, the appearance of parasitic behaviors in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not subject to levels of realism, from highly applied, to quite abstract. Thus the searching algorithm's relative performance does not affect the structure of the requirement that saltation is not permitted within the scope of any searching algorithm. So far, the systematic use of complex symbols delimits the winning games are those that the winning agents play.

Next paragraph            What is this all about?            How does it work?