Re: Fundamental problems in Physics

[Steve Johnson <***>]

I'm not qualified to wade in to this heated debate but
I felt compelled to make a couple of comments.

1. I think Howard is definitely one of the top
contributors to the quality of the discussion on this
list and he clearly respects Rosen immensely as he
seemingly knows all of his writings by heart. Based on
several of Howard's papers I read on his site it's
obvious that he is not a devotee of the machine
metaphor. I can also certainly believe that physicists
that Howard knows and communicates with are well aware
of the limitations of the machine metaphor and as
Howard put it "honestly strive to escape the
limitations of the whatever abstractions happen to be
popular" (quoting from memory). One would certainly
expect this to be true if only due to (a)
self-selection, and (b) due to education by Howard
including references to Rosen, Hertz, his own and
others' work.

2. However, from personal experience I can affirm that
Physics as a discipline is definitely cartesian
through and through if the way it teaches its young
generation is any indicator. I'm not a scientist now
so I cannot speak for how it is at the cutting edge
but the way Physics (even Quantum Mechanics) is taught
in the top academic institutions is definitely
confined to the state-based  paradigm in the sense
that Rosen criticized. Morever, epistimological
critiques of the paradigm are never prominently
offered (maybe as a study of Thomas Kuhn if you're
lucky). I still have several friends in the PhD
programs in Physics and Chemistry and what they do
most of the time is measure observables and crunch
various forms of differential rate equations on
computers.

4. Physics is actually a mild case of this because, as
Howard noted, in Physics there many areas where 
"traditional approach" is actually extremely effective
in terms of commutativity of the modelling relation.
It gets far more rediculous in Social Sciences and
Econmics where people put themselves through bizzare
contortions to apply the 19th century physcis toolbox
of differential rate equations and various constraint
optimization techniques to everything under the sun
regardless of how much sense it makes. 

5. I suspect that this is less due to a conspiracy to
keep the Rosennean view out by vested interests but
more due to the fact that regular working scientists
(number crunching brains of burden) do not see
immediate application of the Rosennean view to their
daily lives even if they took the considerable effort
to understand it. For those who did, I suspect, it is
like a beautiful dream. After thinking about these
matters a physicist may agree with Rosen and then sigh
and think to himself: "Oh well, that's nice, but now I
have to go and type my differential equation into
Mathematica because I have this paper due and so on."
The Rosennean philosophy will have to be developed by
others to come up with a trusty toolbox before the
regular Joe scientist will see its value.

- Steve




 

  
 






 interesting co

--- Judith Rosen <***> wrote:

> 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 ----- 
>   From: Howard Pattee
>   To: ***
>   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
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com