G. W. Flake, The Computational Beauty of Nature

As the author of The Computational Beauty of Nature (hereafter, abbreviated as CBN) I am grateful for both the complimentary remarks as well as the thoughtful criticisms made by Melanie Moses, Stephanie Forrest, and Martin Berzins. As Moses and Forrest point out, CBN contains many of my intellectual biases and enthusiasms and, as a result, it undoubtedly contains imperfections related to my subjective view of science, mathematics, and philosophy. That said, I am delighted that the two reviews in this issue agree in positive aspects as much as they do. However, the two reviews do differ in some key aspects, which will be the focus of my response. I purposely designed CBN so that it could be read in multiple ways so as to suit the needs of different readers. As described in the preface, the first method of reading CBN would exploit the relatively self-contained and independent nature of the chapters, allowing the reader to skip around and pursue only those parts that look immediately appealing. A second method would use a more linear approach, working through the five parts in succession, so as to best appreciate the connections made between computation, fractals, chaos, complex systems, and adaptation. And still, a third reading would focus on the overall pattern that ties the five book parts into a single theme, as put forth in the preface, five “Postscript” chapters, and the epilogue. As I wrote in CBN’s preface: