All,
Being geographically separate from the corpus of folks on this list, the reason for this email may have already been discussed, debunked, railed at, lauded, etc. But since I don't think I've seen it on the mailing list I thought I'd take a swing at passing it on. If I've made a mis-step, my apoligies. http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151 More Really is DifferentIn 1972, P.W.Anderson suggested that `More is Different', meaning that complex physical systems may exhibit behavior that cannot be understood only in terms of the laws governing their microscopic constituents. We strengthen this claim by proving that many macroscopic observable properties of a simple class of physical systems (the infinite periodic Ising lattice) cannot in general be derived from a microscopic description. This provides evidence that emergent behavior occurs in such systems, and indicates that even if a `theory of everything' governing all microscopic interactions were discovered, the understanding of macroscopic order is likely to require additional insights. And commentary from NewScientist: http://tiny.pl/srp2 -Ian -- ___________________________________ Ian P. Cook m: 412.759.8973 jabber: [hidden email] Y!/MSN: ian_palmer_cook AIM: ianpalmercook ___________________________________ ============================================================ 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 |
I'm not sure why this result is surprising really?
Cheers On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 04:04:16PM -0400, Ian P. Cook wrote: > All, > > Being geographically separate from the corpus of folks on this list, the > reason for this email may have already been discussed, debunked, railed at, > lauded, etc. But since I don't think I've seen it on the mailing list I > thought I'd take a swing at passing it on. If I've made a mis-step, my > apoligies. > > http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151 > More Really is Different Authors: Mile > Gu<http://arxiv.org/find/cond-mat/1/au:+Gu_M/0/1/0/all/0/1>, > Christian Weedbrook<http://arxiv.org/find/cond-mat/1/au:+Weedbrook_C/0/1/0/all/0/1>, > Alvaro Perales<http://arxiv.org/find/cond-mat/1/au:+Perales_A/0/1/0/all/0/1>, > Michael A. Nielsen<http://arxiv.org/find/cond-mat/1/au:+Nielsen_M/0/1/0/all/0/1> > > In 1972, P.W.Anderson suggested that `More is Different', meaning that > complex physical systems may exhibit behavior that cannot be understood only > in terms of the laws governing their microscopic constituents. We strengthen > this claim by proving that many macroscopic observable properties of a > simple class of physical systems (the infinite periodic Ising lattice) > cannot in general be derived from a microscopic description. This provides > evidence that emergent behavior occurs in such systems, and indicates that > even if a `theory of everything' governing all microscopic interactions were > discovered, the understanding of macroscopic order is likely to require > additional insights. > > And commentary from NewScientist: > http://tiny.pl/srp2 > > > -Ian > > > -- > ___________________________________ > Ian P. Cook > m: 412.759.8973 > jabber: [hidden email] > Y!/MSN: ian_palmer_cook > AIM: ianpalmercook > ___________________________________ > ============================================================ > 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ 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 |
In reply to this post by Ian P. Cook
P.W. Anderson's long-standing observations are
undeniable. This doesn't exclude recognition of the value of reductionist
efforts to get at scientific understanding. They go hand-in-hand. One example
of the value of reductionism can be seen in the recent recognition (Nobel
Prize) of three Japanese physicists . They explained how it happens that matter
"overbalances" antimatter in the early universe, to make posssible our matter
universe-- and creatures such as ourselves able to contemplate such
questions.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
============================================================ 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 |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |