|
I think this ground has been adequately covered for now. There are
only so many ways one can say things, to try to make them clearer. Pete's post
was absolutely a masterpiece of clarity and said all the things I've been trying
so hard to say, but he said it with the authority of a physicist and that's the
added beauty of his post. The fact that he recognized my father's respect for
the contributions of physics and of physicists, from reading my father's books,
makes me feel a lot better. I know that these were my father's actual beliefs,
so criticisms that he was being unfairly harsh bother me; I think it's obvious
from reading his work that he was not engaging in unrelenting negativity. Far
from it! The fact that you have not been able to see it puzzles me, but I've
tried my best to both explain and defend and ultimately I know that the work
speaks for itself.
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 6:21
PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Fundamental problems
in Physics
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.
|