Friam

Unstrung

Classic

List

Threaded

6 messages Options

phil henshaw

Unstrung

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, except for a few decimal places and things like
cosmology, so the physicists went off on a wild tear that, having
nothing to explain, lead nowhere.

I was sort of thinking, if there's a data shortage, maybe they could
look at all the good data we've been tossing in the trash for centuries,
the data tails clipped off and disposed of in the process of
approximating the regular processes we found. Those 'tails' contain
all the evidence we have of the beginnings and endings of things, all
the unstable and connecting processes. Is it limitless? I don't
know, but it seems like a door to nature's deep thought. At the very
least they expose how nature doesn't conceive of things 'bling bling
bling' like we do, but exhaustively completes every last elaborate step.
Figuring that out seems like it could last us a good long while.

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061003/5afcb47a/attachment.html

Hywel White

Unstrung

Silence is over, the *** was too much.

_____

From: phil henshaw [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 3:55 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Cc: New Yorker
Subject: [FRIAM] Unstrung

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, except
for a few decimal places and things like cosmology, so the physicists went
off on a wild tear that, having nothing to explain, lead nowhere.

I was sort of thinking, if there's a data shortage, maybe they could look at
all the good data we've been tossing in the trash for centuries, the data
tails clipped off and disposed of in the process of approximating the
regular processes we found. Those 'tails' contain all the evidence we have
of the beginnings and endings of things, all the unstable and connecting
processes. Is it limitless? I don't know, but it seems like a door to
nature's deep thought. At the very least they expose how nature doesn't
conceive of things 'bling bling bling' like we do, but exhaustively
completes every last elaborate step. Figuring that out seems like it could
last us a good long while.

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061003/c13a33ab/attachment.html

Robert Holmes

Unstrung

In reply to this post by phil henshaw

On 10/3/06, phil henshaw <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

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/). 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061003/59a31692/attachment.html

Phil Henshaw-2

Unstrung

Well, I'll certainly concede to the valid half. There are a wide
variety of kinds of physics, all with good puzzles, some approaching the
subject of complex systems from the needed variety of unassuming views.
I'll have a look further at the links, but I think I do also see a very
clear hole.

To me it looks like it's quite big and in the middle, though you may see
it as some insignificant little dot off to the side. There's a simple
test. Where you see evidence of things beginning and ending, do you
see the connections as more likely to be local developmental process or
global statistical fates?

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061003/10721ff0/attachment.html

Phil Henshaw-2

Unstrung

In reply to this post by Robert Holmes

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: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061003/30096153/attachment-0001.html

Carl Tollander

Unstrung

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: 212-795-4844
> 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