Fitness landscapes are a favourite of mine. I did quite a lot of thinking about them some years ago. The Red Queen Hypothesis was such a great idea when it first hit.

Nests huh? No alliteration then – ah well.

As for applicability, in a sandpile cascade one can calculate the subsequent angle of repose, but not where us individual grains end up…

What I do like is at least the recognition that there is more to it than people like to think, these are non-linear, open, non-equilibrium systems with sources, sinks, and drivers.

I also find the concept of "fitness landscapes" useful, especially that the actions and decisions of the people around us change our "landscape", and how we are "fit" to it, hopefully with information as to how we should try to adapt. Whether we can pull it off is another thing.

PS I believe hornets live in nests.

I see Non-linearity, complexity, evolving systems, self-organising system etc to be profoundly important but not necessarily at a surface level. They tell us the kind of world we live in, how it will change and some of the ways it will react to changes, but not what to do from moment to moment.

David Ruelle is someone whose work I think is very good. Nice man too.

Thanks. I have not read that. I

by Anderson/Arrow/Pines

esp. the chapter titled "Do You Guys Really Believe That?"