Fw: Re: Unstrung

Posted by Phil Henshaw-2 on Oct 04, 2006; 11:34pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Fw-Re-Unstrung-tp522691.html

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