Re: The Einstein issue of Discover Magazine, syntropy

[John M <***>]

Judith, just be nice and careful. Antonella seemingly made no connection to
RR (if she ever heard about him) and "Italians" (as all of us) are
chauvinistic about their national heroes, especially if they published so
early. A 'strongly informing' statement could push her in denial and we
don't need strengthening of the oppositional camp.
*
The topic is 'out' for me: I am opposed to the artefact "entropy" so the
inverse of it is no joy for me either.
*
The 2nd law is the product of 'sweat' to explain premature observations
during an age of flimsy information about the world (eg. it preceded the
RR-ideas <G>) and the subsequent epistemic enrichment resulted in amendments
of the sacrosanct "law" with its
prodigy:called 'entropy' 2+ centuries ago. Everything was 'fitted' into this
view (and matched to its applied math).
No subsequent sci. establishment allowed a fresh (basic) look.

This (*) is my opinion and I don't defend it. Like it or leave it.

Cheers

John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: The Einstein issue of Discover Magazine, syntropy


> Luigi Fantappie's "syntropy" definitely does sound like a way to descibe
> what happens in Anticipatory systems....
----Truncated to protect the Archive------