(2018-01-07, 08:37 PM)Kamarling Wrote: Sorry but I think you are still missing the point. Correct me if I'm wrong but the original analogy was to show that something like an architectural arch, which would fall down without those stones in place, required scaffolding to hold it up until the keystone was in place. Then the scaffolding could be discarded. How does the analogy work with simple erosion wearing a hole in the rock? Surely there is no complexity therefore no analogy?
Does ‘how’ we arrive at an arch determine its complexity? All I’m seeing is a loaded definition of what complexity is.