Irreducible functionality notes

[backspace]

http://groups.google.com/group/tautology-notes/tree/browse_frm/thread/893c5f2ed581a310/a9d5d75ddcdef590?rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftautology-notes%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F893c5f2ed581a310%3F#doc_f4ade9ad8b975c30

[backspace]

http://measureofdoubt.com/2011/04/06/the-perils-of-metaphorical-think...
So far I’ve been discussing implicit metaphors, but explicit
metaphors
can also lead us astray without us realizing it. We use one thing to
metaphorically stand in for another because they share some important
property, but then we assume that additional properties of the first
thing must also be shared by the second thing. For example, here’s a
scientist explaining why complex organisms were traditionally assumed
to be more vulnerable to genetic mutations, compared to simpler
organisms: “Think of a hammer and a microscope… One is complex, one
is
simple. If you change the length of an arbitrary component of the
system by an inch, for example, you’re more likely to break the
microscope than the hammer.”

That’s true, but the vulnerable complexity of a microscope isn’t the
only kind of complexity. Some systems become more robust to failure
as
they become more complex, because of the redundancies that accrue —
if
one part fails, there are others to compensate. Power grids, for
example, are built with more power lines than strictly necessary, so
that if one line breaks or becomes overloaded, the power gets
rerouted
through other lines. Vulnerability isn’t a function of complexity per
se, but of redundancy. And just because an organism and a microscope
are both complex, doesn’t mean the organism shares the microscope’s
low redundancy.