Re: Fundamental problems in Physics

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Judith, 
I'm returning to the same starting place.

At 08:38 AM 12/15/04 -0500, Judith wrote:
> I think this is a good place to
> start:
> >Judith: As he [Rosen] said in Life, Itself, "The machine
> metaphor isn't 
> >just a little bit wrong, it is entirely wrong and must be
> discarded."
>
> HP: It is difficult to see this statement as more than an _expression_ of
> irritation. I have never heard anything like this from Rosen, and it
> contradicts his long-standing concept of complexity as systems that
> require 
> multiple models. 
>  
> Judith: Well, you are correctly reading his irritation, but it is far
> more than just irritation. He's stating it like it is, with none of the
> careful diplomacy that he had used up to that point, which seemed to be
> obscuring the message too much for it to get across clearly.

HP: In my opinion, when Rosen has a bad reception is because in LI he is
not stating it as it is. Too often he is gratuitously dismissing other
modelers. This is not the Rosen I knew. His long term attitude is
expressed better in AS where physics is inadequate but not wrong. Again,
in my opinion, what is also obscuring Rosen's message is your focus on
disparaging useful tested models instead of focusing on constructing
useful Rosen models. 

Rosen's major contribution is to epistemology, or how we should think
about scientific models. The bulk of his writing revolves around his
elaboration and detailed analysis of the modeling process, and how the
choice of observables and the measuring or encoding process is crucial to
what type of formal structures satisfy the Hertzian test. He was
especially interested in how a given natural system could be encoded into
inequivalent (complementary) models, including physical models, and
especially why complex systems like life require such multiple
inequivalent models. He certainly did not believe models were true or
false, right or wrong, but that they were evaluated by their Hertzian
conformance with the observed behavior of natural systems. 

In the thirty or so years I talked with Rosen about all kinds of models I
never heard anything so contrary to his concept of model than, ". .
. it is entirely wrong and must be discarded."  That is why I
ascribe it to irritation and hyperbole. 

Rosen believed Hertz was fundamentally correct. That is why he spent so
much effort elaborating the modeling relation. All physical models are
evaluated on the Hertzian condition and all physicists are well-aware
that none of present models fully satisfies it. Nevertheless, no
one who understands how incredibly close to the Hertzian ideal physics
models are could justifiably say they are "entirely wrong"
(e.g., the so-called standard model that includes quantum
electrodynamics, electroweak and strong force models). Even Newton was
not "entirely wrong." In fact it makes no sense to discard
classical models. They work exceptionally well in their proper context.
With what would you replace them? Before trying to dismiss Newton, just
because he didn't get it all right, you should understand that his
separation of the concept of laws and initial condition, is a
prerequisite Hertz's epistemology and the models that follow 
it.

It is also a serious injustice to accuse physicists as a group of claims
about biology they have not made, especially when many have explicitly
repudiated the claim that physical laws explain life. We all agree that
state-determined dynamics do not describe memory controlled systems or
informational constraints. They are in most cases fully and critically
aware of their assumptions. Physicists are critical but not antagonistic
to novel ideas. In fact, they welcome them if they are presented with
some modesty and not as the "true model"  that calls for
discarding all existing models.

One thing I am quite certain about because of how ideas have evolved
historically. Rosen's scientific legacy will not be decided by what
Judith and Tim and the rest of us say on this list, and not even so much
by what he actually published. The historical evaluation will be decided
mostly by the biological models stimulated by his ideas; and not only by
those who follow too closely, like disciples, but more by those who
modify his general ideas for the specific questions they want to answer
(as I think John K is trying to do.) 

Howard