Comments on: Law 5: Differences

by: BrnLng

Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:43:33 +0000

I think an underlying tone of this excerpt is about “contrast” in itself. We do need contrast, don´t we?

And I agree with the “sophistication” x “complexity” idea. Complexity is synergy—often not knowledgeable, sophistication is otherwise.

by: tobto

Wed, 09 Jan 2008 12:00:47 +0000

I think verge separating difficult from simple is clear human phenomenon of accustoming.

by: lucmars

Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:50:14 +0000

I would suggest that the simplicity and the complexity don’t need each other but more precisely they should stand at a different level of logic.
For example, you have several features but you can use them indifferently because none of them implies one or some of them. In this case you have a graphe, otherwise it’s a tree.

A graphe presents a combinatorial more complexe than a tree but leads you everywhere, you can proceed as you want; with a tree you have to proceed accordingly. The simplicity here doesn’t belong to the logical level of the graphe or the tree, it is enabled at an other level indeed.

Comparatively the graphe enable something simpler than the tree.

by: rakesh

Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:54:07 +0000

plz. give me some information on this topic(complexity)for the purpose of makinf a report.
for this, ever i will be thankful to u.

by: Alberto Rinon

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:29:21 +0000

Hi John,

Great speech at TEDTalks this year!!

Your designs with katakana building up a complex drawing made me realize that in fact simplificy doesn’t need complexity but complexity IS generated by simplicity.

You can see this basically not only on any architect’s design but also in fractal drawings and recursive programming.

by: Chris Heath

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:37:05 +0000

I have sometimes heard the expressions: “The Devil is in the details” and “God is in the details”. I am by no means religous, but often contemplate these two quotes.

For me, the first quote equates to the equation “Complexity + Ignorance = Chaos”, and the later quote equates to the equation “Compexity + Knowledge (or Understanding)” = Beauty. Could you please help me find the words that best simplify this equation?

by: Hernando Aguilera

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 02:50:59 +0000

Complexity helps you to understand the link between the events and aboid simples explanations (generally wrongly interpreted). Simplicity helps you to dosify the emplanation to all those embolved. Thanks for this great laws. If I could have some more years I think I would write them (some of them at least).

by: Johan

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:09:50 +0000

If, by definition, complexity = something which can be simplified, then I prefer the word “sophistication” over complexity with regards to what is complex, yet unsimplifiable (or a mixture there of).

Entropy can be thought of as the tendency for complexity to grow with time automatically. Hence, although simplicity may “eat” complexity, complexity naturally grows with time.

by: maeda

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:53:07 +0000

Complexity + Ignorance = Chaos … thank you for solving the puzzle for us Chris. As a person that feels ignorant every day, I’m glad to know it’s a natural part of the chaos of life. Best wishes, John

by: Chris Heath

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:46:48 +0000

One definition of chaos (I can’t remember which book it came from) is “a mixture of complexity and ignorance”. There is order in complexity and if this complexity overwhelms our senses, the chaos of our minds take over. So chaos is complexity that we find difficult to comprehend.

Being able to see the order behind complex systems allows us to define the systems essence, which we can then apply to the design of useful and/or beautiful systems (simple or otherwise). This process helps us to appreciate the complex system that may have initially overwhelmed our senses.