Re: Fundamental problems in Physics

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Judith,
I think there is a disagreement on the meaning of "generality" of physics. 
It does not imply reductionism or the sufficiency of physical laws for 
modeling everything there is. It is meant as necessary but not sufficient. 
Here is the crucial question: Do you believe that living systems at any 
level of complexity can violate or evade physical laws? Generality is 
implied if your answer is, "No."

Judith: First of all, as I said before; there is a difference between 
accusing physicists (either as a group or individually) and accusing 
Physics. He was accusing Physics, based on claims made within the 
foundations of Physics itself. Those claims have not been repudiated; they 
are still being taught in high school.

HP: What do you say explicitly are the "claims made within the foundations 
of Physics itself"? What is your evidence? Physics is an enormous field. No 
physicist today understands the whole field, and the foundations have 
drastically changed throughout its history. Today, foundations are more 
fluid than ever and are the center of active controversy.

> Judith: Why anyone should be so offended by my father's saying so [the 
> machine metaphor is wrong] is a mystery to me. That same "Herzian 
> Condition" is what proves that Descartes was mistaken and is what my 
> father used as his argument in all his books!

HP: It is a mystery because you and Tim are missing the point entirely. Of 
course the machine metaphor is wrong as Rosen defines it. What is offensive 
is that Rosen says that "Physics" believes it. Physicists, as individuals, 
feel this is not a fair assessment of their beliefs. Consequently the 
perfectly natural, all too human, response of physicists is to throw the 
baby out with the bath, that is, they dismiss Rosen's good ideas along with 
what they interpret as his bad opinion of them.

Rosen is correctly critical of the view that the foundational physical 
models (as they exist) can explain life. Of course one can find individuals 
who have made this claim, but he is incorrectly critical of the physicists 
that actually created these foundational models, like Maxwell, Boltzmann, 
Planck, Eddington, Schroedinger, Bohr, Einstein, and many contemporary 
foundational physicists who do not make this claim and in most cases have 
explicitly questioned or repudiated it. You can't forever blame Descartes 
for the views of all of modern physicists.

Howard