Pete,
thanks (again) for the words of (scientific and
other) reason.
I am also thrilled for your appreciation about
HP's discussions on this list showing his philosophical altitude over
sometimes malicious words about his words.
One remark on something HP lately mentioned en
passant
and I was hoping to get it from you, too: the
SAP reference to Tippler's rather religious position: I would add to the Strong
Anthropic Principle that - and if the circumstances were not QUITE what they
are, there would be a DIFFERENT thinking
creature - probably not like us, but in the
unlimited variability choices of nature such development would not be barred.
(That, of course, would not help an omega point
position).
I always joined the choir of praising
reductionist science for enriching our wealth of information about nature - with
the caveat not to consider their topical models as the total, what
they frequently do.
In this respect I enroll Schrodinger and
Einstein into it as well, although Sch dis[played philosophical thinking and E
was considering a format of "relational" modeling. I feel guilty of having
been one of those 'monolythic' (polymer) scientists for
½ century without thinking further, until 'the
light went on' and now I feel similarly 'monolythic' for the wholeness idea -
without practical requirements of getting
practically to it.
John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 9:13
PM
Subject: What Physicists REALLY
Think
In my experience, what physicists really think is likely to
evoke as much controversy among themselves as the discussions on this list
evoke about "what physicists really think". Sometimes the controversy among
physicists gets pretty heated...even downright nasty. That reflects on the
personalities involved. I have deep disagreements with some of my physicist
colleagues, but among those of us who have decided that none of those
disagreements are worth the destruction of productive relationships, we do our
best to remain open. No one has a lock on the truth. Any physicist who has any
credibility with me retains the ability to be humbled by what he doesn't know,
which dwarfs what he does know.
As for RR's attitude toward physics and
physicists, I honestly never got the impression that he ever intended any
criticism or indictment of any part of physics that is useful. Chapter 7 of
Anticipatory Systems remains one of the best treatises on the subject of
scientific epistemology I've ever read, and it that piece RR pays proper
credit to the Newtonian paradigm. He neither canonizes it nor demonizes
it.
I believe I've read enough of RR's criticisms of "contemporary
physics" to understand what he is criticizing, and I believe that the point of
his criticism is less about criticism per se than it is about
the epistemological shortcomings of the dominant scientific paradigm, which
simply cannot tell us much about complex systems. Seems reasonable to me, but
not everyone gets what RR is saying; some of the people who don't get it are
physicists, and some are biologists. So? All that says is that they don't see
a way in which the things RR is saying have any particular relevance to what
interests them.
I like what Steve Johnson said in describing what he
proposed as being a likely favorable reaction to RR's work among physicists
(I'm paraphrasing from memory here): "Wow...that's really an elegant
perspective. (shrug) Now, back to work on crunching these numbers..." If one
doesn't see any immediate applicability of RR's work to one's own work, then
regardless of the elegance of its philosophical arguments, its influence will
be limited to a slower, less coherent, more indirect transformation of one's
view of the epistemology of science. Nevertheless, it will have an
influence.
If one takes a more philosophical approach to
the way one views science as a whole?as a process for acquiring useful
knowledge about the universe in which we live?I think RR's work holds great
promise as pointer to the kind of "new physics" that Schrodinger and Einstein
proposed as necessary to take our comprehension beyond anything the current
paradigms can provide. I think that, far from attacking physics and physicists
in general, RR used Schrodinger and Einstein as examples of 20th century
physicists who clearly recognized the limitations of "contemporary
physics"?who challenged their fellow physicists to be open to epistemological
growth that would make physics a more universal and more useful
science.
At least, that's my take on it. Others have their own
opinions. I know two other physicists who have read Essays on Life
Itself from cover to cover on my recommendation. Each liked different
parts, and both were interested in parts other than the ones that interested
me most. Both thought that RR makes valid points about scientific
epistemology, and particularly about the limitations of existing scientific
paradigms. That's a small sampling of physicists, but those results are
consistent with what I already knew: "what physicists really think" is not
monolithic.
I also like Howard's post representing the way physicists
(good ones, anyway) are likely to respond to some of Judith's statements that
Howard quoted in that same post. Those responses are consistent with RR's
perspective, as I understand it. As a physicist, I recognize some of the
attitudes that RR criticizes in some of my colleagues, some of whom appear to
enjoy being in the limelight. That's their prerogative, but as to whether they
accurately represent the attitudes and perspectives of most
physicists...that's a matter of speculation. My guess is that they
don't.
So, while it might be true that the majority of physicists may
not avidly embrace RR's work?and even those that do might not find it
immediately applicable in their own work?I believe that there is perhaps less
fundamental incongruence between the epistemological perspective inherent in
what most physicists really think and RR's own perspective than some of the
debate on this forum might suggest.
Pete