Is mathematical pattern the theory of everything?

[Richard Lowenberg]

Of interest to some.   rl


 From the New Scientist (there are important diagrams at the site-- <http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626303.900;jsessionid=OEGLIBGOIACB
 >

Is mathematical pattern the theory of everything?
by Zeeya Merali

GARRETT LISI is an unlikely individual to be staking a claim for a
theory of everything. He has no university affiliation and spends most
of the year surfing in Hawaii. In winter, he heads to the mountains
near Lake Tahoe, California, to teach snowboarding. Until recently,
physics was not much more than a hobby.

That hasn't stopped some leading physicists sitting up and taking
notice after Lisi made his theory public on the physics pre-print
archive this week (www.arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770). By analysing the most
elegant and intricate pattern known to mathematics, Lisi has uncovered
a relationship underlying all the universe's particles and forces,
including gravity - or so he hopes. Lee Smolin at the Perimeter
Institute for Theoretical Physics (PI) in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada,
describes Lisi's work as "fabulous". "It is one of the most compelling
unification models I've seen in many, many years," he says.

That's some achievement, as physicists have been trying to find a
uniform framework for the fundamental forces and particles ever since
they developed the standard model more than 30 years ago. The standard
model successfully weaves together three of the four fundamental
forces of nature: the electromagnetic force; the strong force, which
binds quarks together in atomic nuclei; and the weak force, which
controls radioactive decay. The problem has been that gravity has so
far refused to join the party.

Most attempts to bring gravity into the picture have been based on
string theory, which proposes that particles are ultimately composed
of minuscule strings. Lisi has never been a fan of string theory and
says that it's because of pressure to step into line that he abandoned
academia after his PhD. "I've never been much of a follower, so I
walked off to search for my own theory," he says. Last year, he won a
research grant from the charitably funded Foundational Questions
Institute to pursue his ideas.

He had been tinkering with "weird" equations for years and getting
nowhere, but six months ago he stumbled on a research paper analysing
E8 - a complex, eight-dimensional mathematical pattern with 248
points. He noticed that some of the equations describing its structure
matched his own. "The moment this happened my brain exploded with the
implications and the beauty of the thing," says Lisi. "I thought:
'Holy crap, that's it!'"

What Lisi had realised was that if he could find a way to place the
various elementary particles and forces on E8's 248 points, it might
explain, for example, how the forces make particles decay, as seen in
particle accelerators.

Lisi is not the first person to associate particles with the points of
symmetric patterns. In the 1950s, Murray Gell-Mann and colleagues
correctly predicted the existence of the "omega-minus" particle after
mapping known particles onto the points of a symmetrical mathematical
structure called SU(3). This exposed a blank slot, where the new
particle fitted.

Before tackling the daunting E8, Lisi examined a smaller cousin, a
hexagonal pattern called G2, to see if it would explain how the strong
nuclear force works. According to the standard model, forces are
carried by particles: for example, the strong force is carried by
gluons. Every quark has a quantum property called its "colour charge"
- red, green or blue - which denotes how the quarks are affected by
gluons. Lisi labelled points on G2 with quarks and anti-quarks of each
colour, and with various gluons, and found that he could reproduce the
way that quarks are known to change colour when they interact with
gluons, using nothing more than high-school geometry (see Graphic).

Turning to the geometry of the next simplest pattern in the family,
Lisi found he was able to explain the interactions between neutrinos
and electrons by using the star-like F4. The standard model already
successfully describes the electroweak force, uniting the
electromagnetic and the weak forces. Lisi added gravity into the mix
by including two force-carrying particles called "e-phi" and "omega",
to the F4 diagram - creating a "gravi-electroweak" force.

[snip]

[Carl Tollander]

Some are sympathetic but have reservations.
Sabine  Hossenfelder:  
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/11/theoretically-simple-exception-of.html
and
Christine Dantas:
http://egregium.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/physics-needs-independent-thinkers/
and
Peter Woit:  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=617
and
John Baez: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week253.html
and
Steinn Sigur?sson:
http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2007/11/overly_simple_theory_of_someth.php

Some of the sharp-elbow folks have stronger reservations.
Lubos Motl:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptionally-simple-theory-of.html
and
Jacques Distler:
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/001505.html

One of the more sympathetic people is actually Garrett Lisi:
http://deferentialgeometry.org/
You can see a talk here: http://relativity.phys.lsu.edu/ilqgs/  (look at
Tues, Nov 13th).

I currently find Sabine's oft-referenced discussion the most accessible,
which is not to say that I necessarily understand it all.
Next try: Steinn Sigur?sson's post which purports to give a simple
description of Garrett's argument and some problems with it.

Caveat: I have not read Lisi's paper and have not formed my own opinion
of it yet.  These links are just pointers to discussions.

Time to dig out Georgi's book on Lie Algebras, like I didn't have
anything else to think about....
Carl

Richard Lowenberg wrote:

> Of interest to some.   rl
>
>
>  From the New Scientist (there are important diagrams at the site-- <http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626303.900;jsessionid=OEGLIBGOIACB
>  >
>
> Is mathematical pattern the theory of everything?
> by Zeeya Merali
>
> GARRETT LISI is an unlikely individual to be staking a claim for a
> theory of everything. He has no university affiliation and spends most
> of the year surfing in Hawaii. In winter, he heads to the mountains
> near Lake Tahoe, California, to teach snowboarding. Until recently,
> physics was not much more than a hobby.
>
> That hasn't stopped some leading physicists sitting up and taking
> notice after Lisi made his theory public on the physics pre-print
> archive this week (www.arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770). By analysing the most
> elegant and intricate pattern known to mathematics, Lisi has uncovered
> a relationship underlying all the universe's particles and forces,
> including gravity - or so he hopes. Lee Smolin at the Perimeter
> Institute for Theoretical Physics (PI) in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada,
> describes Lisi's work as "fabulous". "It is one of the most compelling
> unification models I've seen in many, many years," he says.
>
> That's some achievement, as physicists have been trying to find a
> uniform framework for the fundamental forces and particles ever since
> they developed the standard model more than 30 years ago. The standard
> model successfully weaves together three of the four fundamental
> forces of nature: the electromagnetic force; the strong force, which
> binds quarks together in atomic nuclei; and the weak force, which
> controls radioactive decay. The problem has been that gravity has so
> far refused to join the party.
>
> Most attempts to bring gravity into the picture have been based on
> string theory, which proposes that particles are ultimately composed
> of minuscule strings. Lisi has never been a fan of string theory and
> says that it's because of pressure to step into line that he abandoned
> academia after his PhD. "I've never been much of a follower, so I
> walked off to search for my own theory," he says. Last year, he won a
> research grant from the charitably funded Foundational Questions
> Institute to pursue his ideas.
>
> He had been tinkering with "weird" equations for years and getting
> nowhere, but six months ago he stumbled on a research paper analysing
> E8 - a complex, eight-dimensional mathematical pattern with 248
> points. He noticed that some of the equations describing its structure
> matched his own. "The moment this happened my brain exploded with the
> implications and the beauty of the thing," says Lisi. "I thought:
> 'Holy crap, that's it!'"
>
> What Lisi had realised was that if he could find a way to place the
> various elementary particles and forces on E8's 248 points, it might
> explain, for example, how the forces make particles decay, as seen in
> particle accelerators.
>
> Lisi is not the first person to associate particles with the points of
> symmetric patterns. In the 1950s, Murray Gell-Mann and colleagues
> correctly predicted the existence of the "omega-minus" particle after
> mapping known particles onto the points of a symmetrical mathematical
> structure called SU(3). This exposed a blank slot, where the new
> particle fitted.
>
> Before tackling the daunting E8, Lisi examined a smaller cousin, a
> hexagonal pattern called G2, to see if it would explain how the strong
> nuclear force works. According to the standard model, forces are
> carried by particles: for example, the strong force is carried by
> gluons. Every quark has a quantum property called its "colour charge"
> - red, green or blue - which denotes how the quarks are affected by
> gluons. Lisi labelled points on G2 with quarks and anti-quarks of each
> colour, and with various gluons, and found that he could reproduce the
> way that quarks are known to change colour when they interact with
> gluons, using nothing more than high-school geometry (see Graphic).
>
> Turning to the geometry of the next simplest pattern in the family,
> Lisi found he was able to explain the interactions between neutrinos
> and electrons by using the star-like F4. The standard model already
> successfully describes the electroweak force, uniting the
> electromagnetic and the weak forces. Lisi added gravity into the mix
> by including two force-carrying particles called "e-phi" and "omega",
> to the F4 diagram - creating a "gravi-electroweak" force.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
>
>
>  

[Steve Smith]

I'm waiting for Wolfram to weigh in....

Carl Tollander wrote:

> Some are sympathetic but have reservations.
> Sabine  Hossenfelder:  
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/11/theoretically-simple-exception-of.html
> and
> Christine Dantas:
> http://egregium.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/physics-needs-independent-thinkers/
> and
> Peter Woit:  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=617
> and
> John Baez: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week253.html
> and
> Steinn Sigur?sson:
> http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2007/11/overly_simple_theory_of_someth.php
>
> Some of the sharp-elbow folks have stronger reservations.
> Lubos Motl:
> http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptionally-simple-theory-of.html
> and
> Jacques Distler:
> http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/001505.html
>  

[Gus Koehler-2]

Bernard D'Espagnat, practicing and well know physicist, in his 2006 On
Physics and Philosophy makes the following points based on contemporary
limits that nature has imposed us via quantum mechanics:

-- Common sense is not an adequate test to establish unquestioned validity
-- The principal of "incomplete determination of theory by experience"
creates difficulties for Pythagoras (complete mathematical theory of the
universe)  because it so happens that there are 3 distinct theories, all o f
them ground on the general quantum rules, yielding essentially the same
observational predictions, but widely differing concerning the ideas they
call forth.  These theories are the "theory of the Dirac sea," "Feynman
graph theory," and "quantum field theory."
-- Locality as particles, and so forth are not the constitutive materials of
the universe there is only a "something", a wholeness of some sort.
-- Nonseparability or nonlocality is the foundation of this wholeness (work
by Bell and experiments by Aspect and others)
-- Objectivity language as providing a grammatical form that makes it
possible to speak of essentially contingent space- and time-localized data
as existing quite INDEPENDENT of us generates insurmountable difficulties.
-- The cop-out of saying its all "just a model", in particular the standard
model, only results in ignoring the fact that the observed is entangled in
measurement--but such a model fails because it does not leave out the
classical requirement of objectivity or of no reference to us.

Check it out.

Gus


Gus Koehler, Ph.D.
President and Principal
Time Structures, Inc.
1545 University Ave.
Sacramento, CA 95825
916-564-8683, Fax: [phone]
Cell: 916-716-1740
www.timestructures.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of steve smith
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 11:05 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Is mathematical pattern the theory of everything?

I'm waiting for Wolfram to weigh in....

Carl Tollander wrote:

> Some are sympathetic but have reservations.
> Sabine  Hossenfelder:  
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/11/theoretically-simple-exceptio
> n-of.html
> and
> Christine Dantas:
> http://egregium.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/physics-needs-independent-thi
> nkers/
> and
> Peter Woit:  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=617
> and
> John Baez: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week253.html
> and
> Steinn Sigur?sson:
> http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2007/11/overly_simple_theory_of_so
> meth.php
>
> Some of the sharp-elbow folks have stronger reservations.
> Lubos Motl:
> http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptionally-simple-theory-of.html
> and
> Jacques Distler:
> http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/001505.html
>  

============================================================
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

[Douglas Roberts-2]

I had the pleasure of sitting and talking with a cosmological rock star for
about 1 1/2 hours last week at SuperComputing '07 in Reno.  2006 Noble
winner for physics (COBE) Prof. George Smoot gave one of the keynote
addresses on Thursday morning.  That afternoon he had an informal chat
session around a table with about 5 of us at the UC Berkeley booth on the
convention floor.  A special treat,  getting to talk cosmology with one of
the luminaries in the field.  We also got autographed copies of his book,
"Wrinkles in Time".  A most satisfying experience.

Prof. Smoot, btw, favors a multi-dimensional solution to the problem of
"dark energy" and its presumed role in the recently-observed (by humans,
anyhow) increase in the rate of expansion of the universe.
Multi-dimensional Brane intersections, and other postulated explanations of
that sort.

--Doug

--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
droberts at rti.org
doug at parrot-farm.net
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

On Nov 25, 2007 5:17 PM, Gus Koehler <gus at timestructures.com> wrote:

> Bernard D'Espagnat, practicing and well know physicist, in his 2006 On
> Physics and Philosophy makes the following points based on contemporary
> limits that nature has imposed us via quantum mechanics:
>
> -- Common sense is not an adequate test to establish unquestioned validity
> -- The principal of "incomplete determination of theory by experience"
> creates difficulties for Pythagoras (complete mathematical theory of the
> universe)  because it so happens that there are 3 distinct theories, all o
> f
> them ground on the general quantum rules, yielding essentially the same
> observational predictions, but widely differing concerning the ideas they
> call forth.  These theories are the "theory of the Dirac sea," "Feynman
> graph theory," and "quantum field theory."
> -- Locality as particles, and so forth are not the constitutive materials
> of
> the universe there is only a "something", a wholeness of some sort.
> -- Nonseparability or nonlocality is the foundation of this wholeness
> (work
> by Bell and experiments by Aspect and others)
> -- Objectivity language as providing a grammatical form that makes it
> possible to speak of essentially contingent space- and time-localized data
> as existing quite INDEPENDENT of us generates insurmountable difficulties.
> -- The cop-out of saying its all "just a model", in particular the
> standard
> model, only results in ignoring the fact that the observed is entangled in
> measurement--but such a model fails because it does not leave out the
> classical requirement of objectivity or of no reference to us.
>
> Check it out.
>
> Gus
>
>
> Gus Koehler, Ph.D.
> President and Principal
> Time Structures, Inc.
> 1545 University Ave.
> Sacramento, CA 95825
> 916-564-8683, Fax: [phone]
> Cell: 916-716-1740
> www.timestructures.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> Behalf
> Of steve smith
> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 11:05 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Is mathematical pattern the theory of everything?
>
> I'm waiting for Wolfram to weigh in....
>
> Carl Tollander wrote:
> > Some are sympathetic but have reservations.
> > Sabine  Hossenfelder:
> > http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/11/theoretically-simple-exceptio
> > n-of.html
> > and
> > Christine Dantas:
> > http://egregium.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/physics-needs-independent-thi
> > nkers/
> > and
> > Peter Woit:  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=617<http://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Ewoit/wordpress/?p=617>
> > and
> > John Baez: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week253.html
> > and
> > Steinn Sigur?sson:
> > http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2007/11/overly_simple_theory_of_so
> > meth.php
> >
> > Some of the sharp-elbow folks have stronger reservations.
> > Lubos Motl:
> > http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptionally-simple-theory-of.html
> > and
> > Jacques Distler:
> > http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/001505.html<http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/%7Edistler/blog/archives/001505.html>
> >
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071125/7e0314e6/attachment.html 

[Tom Carter]

All -

   Yes, interesting . . .  my immediate response is, not symplectic  
enough . . .  I never really did like so(3, 1) . . .

   But I like the general idea, and the movie is pretty ( http://deferentialgeometry.org/anim/e8rotation.mov 
  :-)

tom

On Nov 24, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Richard Lowenberg wrote:

> Of interest to some.   rl
>
>
> From the New Scientist (there are important diagrams at the site-- <http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626303.900;jsessionid=OEGLIBGOIACB
>>
>
> Is mathematical pattern the theory of everything?
> by Zeeya Merali
>
> GARRETT LISI is an unlikely individual to be staking a claim for a
> theory of everything. He has no university affiliation and spends most
> of the year surfing in Hawaii. In winter, he heads to the mountains
> near Lake Tahoe, California, to teach snowboarding. Until recently,
> physics was not much more than a hobby.
>
> That hasn't stopped some leading physicists sitting up and taking
> notice after Lisi made his theory public on the physics pre-print
> archive this week (www.arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770). By analysing the most
> elegant and intricate pattern known to mathematics, Lisi has uncovered
> a relationship underlying all the universe's particles and forces,
> including gravity - or so he hopes. Lee Smolin at the Perimeter
> Institute for Theoretical Physics (PI) in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada,
> describes Lisi's work as "fabulous". "It is one of the most compelling
> unification models I've seen in many, many years," he says.
>
> That's some achievement, as physicists have been trying to find a
> uniform framework for the fundamental forces and particles ever since
> they developed the standard model more than 30 years ago. The standard
> model successfully weaves together three of the four fundamental
> forces of nature: the electromagnetic force; the strong force, which
> binds quarks together in atomic nuclei; and the weak force, which
> controls radioactive decay. The problem has been that gravity has so
> far refused to join the party.
>
> Most attempts to bring gravity into the picture have been based on
> string theory, which proposes that particles are ultimately composed
> of minuscule strings. Lisi has never been a fan of string theory and
> says that it's because of pressure to step into line that he abandoned
> academia after his PhD. "I've never been much of a follower, so I
> walked off to search for my own theory," he says. Last year, he won a
> research grant from the charitably funded Foundational Questions
> Institute to pursue his ideas.
>
> He had been tinkering with "weird" equations for years and getting
> nowhere, but six months ago he stumbled on a research paper analysing
> E8 - a complex, eight-dimensional mathematical pattern with 248
> points. He noticed that some of the equations describing its structure
> matched his own. "The moment this happened my brain exploded with the
> implications and the beauty of the thing," says Lisi. "I thought:
> 'Holy crap, that's it!'"
>
> What Lisi had realised was that if he could find a way to place the
> various elementary particles and forces on E8's 248 points, it might
> explain, for example, how the forces make particles decay, as seen in
> particle accelerators.
>
> Lisi is not the first person to associate particles with the points of
> symmetric patterns. In the 1950s, Murray Gell-Mann and colleagues
> correctly predicted the existence of the "omega-minus" particle after
> mapping known particles onto the points of a symmetrical mathematical
> structure called SU(3). This exposed a blank slot, where the new
> particle fitted.
>
> Before tackling the daunting E8, Lisi examined a smaller cousin, a
> hexagonal pattern called G2, to see if it would explain how the strong
> nuclear force works. According to the standard model, forces are
> carried by particles: for example, the strong force is carried by
> gluons. Every quark has a quantum property called its "colour charge"
> - red, green or blue - which denotes how the quarks are affected by
> gluons. Lisi labelled points on G2 with quarks and anti-quarks of each
> colour, and with various gluons, and found that he could reproduce the
> way that quarks are known to change colour when they interact with
> gluons, using nothing more than high-school geometry (see Graphic).
>
> Turning to the geometry of the next simplest pattern in the family,
> Lisi found he was able to explain the interactions between neutrinos
> and electrons by using the star-like F4. The standard model already
> successfully describes the electroweak force, uniting the
> electromagnetic and the weak forces. Lisi added gravity into the mix
> by including two force-carrying particles called "e-phi" and "omega",
> to the F4 diagram - creating a "gravi-electroweak" force.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071125/b84206e3/attachment.html 

[Günther Greindl]

Hi,

D'Espagnat gives a very biased view of QM. For a critical view of the
book see for instance

Esfeld, Michael
Review of "Bernard d'Espagnat, On physics and philosophy, Princeton:
Princeton University Press 2006", Studies in History and Philosophy of
Modern Physics 38B (2007), pp. 989-992

http://www.unil.ch/webdav/site/philo/shared/DocsPerso/EsfeldMichael/2007/Espagnat-SHPMP07.pdf

Gus Koehler wrote:
> Bernard D'Espagnat, practicing and well know physicist, in his 2006 On
> Physics and Philosophy makes the following points based on contemporary
> limits that nature has imposed us via quantum mechanics:


Regards,
G?nther

--
G?nther Greindl
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna
guenther.greindl at univie.ac.at
http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/

Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/
Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org

[Gus Koehler-2]

Thank you for drawing this excellent review to our attention.  References to
differing views from D'Espaganat is very helpful.  In any case, the review
does not negate my essential point but only adds to it, and that is the
fundamental difficulties with trying to establish some foundation for
realism given quantum mechanics.  These implications need to be brought
forward in the Friam discussion.

Regards,

Gus
Gus Koehler, Ph.D.
President and Principal
Time Structures, Inc.
1545 University Ave.
Sacramento, CA 95825
916-564-8683, Fax: [phone]
Cell: 916-716-1740
www.timestructures.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of G?nther Greindl
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Is mathematical pattern the theory of everything?

Hi,

D'Espagnat gives a very biased view of QM. For a critical view of the book
see for instance

Esfeld, Michael
Review of "Bernard d'Espagnat, On physics and philosophy, Princeton:
Princeton University Press 2006", Studies in History and Philosophy of
Modern Physics 38B (2007), pp. 989-992

http://www.unil.ch/webdav/site/philo/shared/DocsPerso/EsfeldMichael/2007/Esp
agnat-SHPMP07.pdf

Gus Koehler wrote:
> Bernard D'Espagnat, practicing and well know physicist, in his 2006 On
> Physics and Philosophy makes the following points based on
> contemporary limits that nature has imposed us via quantum mechanics:


Regards,
G?nther

--
G?nther Greindl
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna
guenther.greindl at univie.ac.at
http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/

Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/
Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org

============================================================
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