|
JohnM,
I would have
thought so too. But he seems here to be arguing in quite a different
tone:
"It is true that the fundamental equations
of physics are simple and beautiful, and that we have good reason to expect
that the equations still to be discovered will be even more simple and
beautiful. But the reduction of other sciences to physics does not work.
Chemistry has its own concepts, not reducible to physics. Biology and
neurology have their own concepts not reducible to physics or to chemistry.
The way to understand a living cell or a living brain is not to consider it as
a collection of atoms. Chemistry and biology and neurology will continue to
advance and to make new fundamental discoveries, no matter what happens to
physics. The territory of new sciences, outside the narrow domain of
theoretical physics, will continue to expand."
Regards,
Tim
Tim,
although I hold Dyson among the "great Minds"
of contemporary physical sciences, (more than just a
great physicist) I also hold him as a citadel
(pharos?)
of the reductionistic sciences.
Dangerous, because he is so good.
Just for a caution to any of us when
reading.
John M
|