Re: Fundamental problems in Physics

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Tim:
I was not thinking so carefully when I wrote the greeting. Instead of 
naming names I should have said "To whom it may concern." My immediate 
thought was responding to Judith who agrees that Rosen opposed the 
"foundations of physics."  I was trying to show by the short history that 
Rosen should have agreed with these physicists who also doubted that 
physics was adequate to model life. They were not the unaware opponents 
that he portrayed in LI.

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.

HP: Physics is an enormous field. As I summarized the minimum conditions 
for foundations of physics (which are not entirely clear or universally 
accepted) they are not restricted to the Newtonian paradigm. It is used 
only where it works, and works very well. As I stated at the end of my 
post, Rosen's only apparent disagreement with many physicists is the 
definition of the concept of "state" by which he defines what he means by 
Newtonian paradigm. I am not sure what concept of state Rosen intended to 
exclude from his models.

Howard

> TG: Howard, please show me where I have attempted to say what physicists
> think as a group. And where I have attempted to turn physicists into
> opponents. If I have done either, I have certainly been remiss. If there is
> no such evidence, please cease to paint me with such a brush and please
> cease using the term "disciple", as it is a derogatory connotation.