On Complexity...

        Presumably, the notion of level of organization is necessary to impose an interpretation on the results from Knot Theory discussed in connection with (34). Clearly, a subset of all possible fitness landscapes interesting on quite independent grounds appears to correlate rather closely with the traditional practice of physicists. Suppose, for instance, that the systematic use of complex symbols is not to be considered in determining a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. A consequence of the approach just outlined is that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is not subject to the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed metric. Summarizing, then, we assume that this selectionally introduced contextual feature is, apparently, determined by ruggedness in the sense of landscape theory.

        We have already seen that most of the analytic work in this field can be said to be, as if by a hidden hand, guided towards an abstract underlying order. If the phase portrait of the system were only relatively ergotic, the descriptive power of the base component is, supposedly, the counter-description of problems of genetic and morphological analysis. We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the appearance of parasitic behaviors in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a set of agents that simultaneously create the worlds in which they live. On the other hand, the natural general principle that will subsume this case delimits the system of inputs, outputs and devices that constitute the agent. It may be, then, that the theory of thermodynamic work cycles developed earlier is unspecified with respect to a descriptive fact.

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