[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: Freeman Dyson - Godel & science as inexhaustable

John M.,

To put this in another way, I agree that it is good that Dyson
recognizes the irreducibility of biology and chemistry to physics, but
the next step will be to recognize the dependence of physics on some
broader complexity theory that links these fields. To stop at
incommensurable disciplines is to stop too short of the mark - a great
step beyond Rutherford's quip that there is only physics and stamp
collecting, but not yet far enough to recognize organizational or
relational complexity, i.e., the legitimate role of formal and final
cause. Anyway, I ordered the book.

JK

John M wrote:

Thanks, Tim, Interesting.
It seems Freeman is getting older and starts thinking.
He touches my idea in the different ways or wholism vs.
the other 'sciences', in first line: math. It is the planarity:
THEY think in the (one) plain of their reductionist views,
while things are multiplanar - as a matter of fact: unlimited.
Chemistry is a plain, bio, genetix, linuistix, etc. are all ONE
plain in the mental activity. Math is a plain in the ass. It is
not a topical science, it is a thing at its own (Ding an sich)
and the problem starts when 'scientists' play 'mathematician' and
apply math to topical scinece. (Formalism, the worst format of
reductionism, because it is so successful and ubiquitously applied).

Cheerz

JohnM


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Tim Gwinn <mailto:***>
    To: *** <mailto:***>
    Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 1:03 PM
    Subject: Re: Freeman Dyson - Godel & science as inexhaustable

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



        -----Original Message-----
        From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf
        Of John M
        Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 10:19 AM
        To: ***
        Subject: Re: Freeman Dyson - Godel & science as inexhaustable

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


--
© 2004 John J. Kineman
all rights reserved