|
Howard wrote: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.
Who is missing the point is a matter of perspective, methinks.
Frankly, I think you are one of those who cannot recognize his own assumptions--
which is why you get mad at my father for saying the machine metaphor is
entirely wrong and must be discarded. That's fine; I really have no desire
to even try to convince you. If my father wasn't able to do that, using his
considerable knowledge of physics and mathematics, etc, what hope have I got?
You are determined, for reasons of your own, to hold onto a more accepted
scientific paradigm and you criticize "Rosen" for being stubborn... Analogies of
the Pot calling the Kettle black come to mind.
As for my "evidence"; it's abundant. I get emails from students of
various scientific disciplines all over the world, stating that what they are
being taught makes no sense to them and they stumbled onto my father's work
somewhere along the way, etc. I have similar emails from various scientists,
including physicists, stating that they "always felt uneasy about" some or other
aspect of their fields, but until they found one of my father's books, they
didn't know why or else didn't know what to do about it. On the other hand, none
of that kind of evidence is really necessary: I have children who are still
getting their basic and secondary education and the textbooks they bring
home have the state-based physics description of the universe in them.
For the record, my father didn't trash people like Planck, Bohr,
Einstein, et al... He trashed the machine metaphor. You can pretend it isn't at
the basis of modern physics all you like, but that doesn't change what IS. Just
a friendly warning: I'm at least as stubborn as my father.
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 5:48
PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Fundamental problems
in Physics
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
|