|
Judith : I agree.
I have problems with "state"
myself.
In spite of a cute question on the JCS-list
today: "what does a process "process"? " my belief system is based on the
slogan:
"nature is process" (panta rhei), nothing is
stagnant, or static
in the world. A "state" is a snapshot in the
changing world. A 'frame' in the unstoppable film.
At the instant you realize it - it is over.
('Instant' is as relative as 'time' itself, a moment for a croco may be
different (in our views) from a moment in the function-mechanism of an atomic
clock).
An equilibrium is a 'state', an equation even
adds to it the limited (analysis-based,
boundary-inclusioned) fixed quantities of the models it deals with.
It may go further than the wording RR found
acceptable to be published - I think it is not contrasting in this broader
sense.
John M
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 9:33 AM
Subject: Physics, biology, and the
concept of "states"...
The word "state", derived from the Greek root "histanai",
is intended (in scientific usage) to describe a condition that similar
words, like stasis and static (from the same root), also describe. It is
a condition that complex systems are never in (although cryogenics seeks to
find a way to approximate it). Even hibernating organisms are not static, in
the sense that physics means. It was this aspect of physics that put the true
nature of the atom, meaning its complexity, beyond the capability of physics
to comprehend much less to study-- if physics was going to stick to the
rules it had set for itself. It is also this aspect that has
led to the situation in physics where, in studying systems like the
atom, the total importance has been assumed to be IN and OF the
parts/particles. Therefore, it can be said that the concept of "state" and
the focus on parts/particles are connected and reinforce each other
in the contemporary physics of my father's day.
It was the artificial rules that physics had set for
itself that my father deplored, not "physics" as an entity. He felt that
the usefulness of those rules were disproved by his work, on purely
scientific grounds. And he believed the vehemence of the attack his work
initially experienced by physicists was due to the human tendency to
marry our traditions. In other words, it had nothing to do with the scientific
merit of his ideas, it had to do with human nature and human
foibles.
While I get the sense, from various discussions with scientists
both on and off list, that some physicists have widened their view of what is
"scientific", in general I believe that humanity tends to still focus,
analytically, on parts and particles. It's "simpler" (sorry for the
pun!). But, when it comes to anything complex, it is not a useful analytical
approach. This is what my father was saying, and this is what certain
physicists took issue with.
Judith
|