Fw: Re: Unstrung

[Phil Henshaw-2]

Forwarding to FRIAM two replies accidentally sent only to Carl, fyi

Because the question of growth is a generalized physical system
organizational development problem crossing all scales of space, time
and phenomena.  You find it everywhere, it has enormous relevance to
all fields, and there are highly useful universal principles for what
to expect and how to explore it's internal processes.  Granted, it's a
pattern of unstable and changing organization, so it does not have a
fixed decription, so a different approach is needed.   Still, it's one
of the core physical phenomena that produce the forms that are stable
and is the kind of subject physics should have useful global models
for so people can know what they're working with.

We've got no guidance to offer those who have tied the health of the
planet to physically reorganizing our life support system at
exponentially accelerating rates forever, for example.

... followed by
oh, well... left out the essential qualification of "observable" when
referring to "all" scales of space and time.  It's hard to conclude
much about things you cant's watch happening, too large or too small,
too fast or too slow, or, like quantum events, having no process yet
identifiable at all....


> OK, why is growth a physics problem and not, say, an algebraic
topology
> problem
> or a genetic regulatory net problem, or an epigenesis problem, or a
> sociology problem,
> or something?  All would state the problem somewhat differently,
drawing on
> different insights.  So, if you can answer that, you can approach
> agreement upon
> language on how to state the problem and can possibly add it to
Unsolved
> Problems
> in Physics.  Otherwise....
>
> Carl
>
> Phil Henshaw wrote:
> > Can't help but mention, but really not meant to be argumentative
for
> > all the good reasons, and since several things on the list are
exactly
> > the kinds of things I'm interested in, but notably missing from
the
> > great list of
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics is
growth.  

> > So I added it.  Let's see if someone erases it without coming to
> > agreed language on how to state the problem!
> >  
> >  
> >
> > Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> > NY NY 10040                      
> > tel: [phone]                
> > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com <mailto:pfh at synapse9.com>        
> > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>  
> >
> >     -----Original Message-----
> >     *From:* friam-bounces at redfish.com
> >     [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert Holmes
> >     *Sent:* Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:29 AM
> >     *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> >     *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Unstrung
> >
> >
> >
> >     On 10/3/06, *phil henshaw* <pfh at synapse9.com
> >     <mailto:pfh at synapse9.com>> wrote:
> >
> >         So I picked up last week's New Yorker to find one of it's
> >         thorough and insightful articles of the same name, in this
> >         case by Jim Holt on the demise of string theory, and the

books
> >         by Smolin and Woit.  What caught my attention was the
apparent
> >         fact that what caused string theory to suddenly take over
all
> >         of theoretical physics is that physics has run out of
data!  
> >         Apparently everything they've thought of trying to explain
has
> >         been
> >
> >
> >
> >     Errrr...how to put this politely? Rubbish! The following lists
are
> >     by by no means definitive but there's enough content to
establish

> >     the falsity of "everything they've thought of trying to explain
> >     has been":
> >     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics#Future_directions
> >     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
> >     <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics>
> >
> >     I think you may be reading more into Holt's comment about "the
> >     absence of data in physics" than is intended (BTW, article is
> >     still available at  http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/
> >     <http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/>).  It seems to be a
> >     somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment that occupies less than half a
> >     sentence and Holt does not expand on it. IMHO, Holt gives much
> >     more weight to the "sociology" explanation.
> >
> >     R
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------

-----
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>

--
Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~        
tel: [phone]                
e-mail: sy at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com



--
Phil Henshaw                      ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040        
tel: [phone]              
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com



--
Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~        
tel: [phone]                
e-mail: sy at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com

[Phil Henshaw-2]

When one has a series of measurements of something, a bunch of dots,
there are two basic choices.   You can look at them as an equation to be
described, connecting them in the plane of the page.   You can also look
at them as physical processes to be found, not directly connecting the
dots to each other, but indirectly connecting them through other things.
That links the dots through loops perpendicular to the page.  

Math is parallel to the page, processes perpendicular.  Together they
provide useful independent dimensions of understanding made possible by
measurement.  

There's a very useful corollary of the conservation laws, following from
their implication that rates of change and their derivatives can not be
infinite.  For things to begin or end there must be periods during which
all rates of change are of the same sign, and fall between upper and
lower bound exponential curves.  That's a reasoning that could equally
lead to the conclusion that there had to be an inflationary period in
the big bang.

I'm not certain the principles used are the same, but there's a
similarity.  What's new for the scientific method in this, though, is
that you can see the same phenomenon in most any sort of beginning or
ending too.  It provides a very useful standard hypothesis for probing
the clues of how events that begin and end occur.

Math and process reasoning can be used together, or you can ignore one
or the other.  Each deals with the same world in a different way.   For
just one example, building an equation that has the same structure from
beginning to end to represent any natural process of change, will not
help much for picking out what actually happening.  Carefully filtering
data to reveal its independent shapes and their start and end points, on
the other hand, can coax clues from the data about many new  kinds of
events.  The main reason that's useful, of course, is there's lots there
to see, frequently evolving systems.




Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040                      
tel: [phone]                
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com