|
Hi Everyone,
Over the weekend, I was thinking about the perennial complaint that
Robert Rosen didn't make any of the kinds of predictions of the sort that
Einstein did, with which to test/verify his theories... And it occurred to
me that my father actually DID, in a certain sense... (Can
anyone on the list come up with formal ways to prove the
following?):
One of my father's main tenets was that the physics-based models
don't accurately describe even the systems they were created to describe.
For example, particulate matter/atomic organization. He said these
deficiencies don't show up much when applications are kept to simple systems and
relatively "low-level" complex systems like atoms but that when you apply them
to global weather or ecosystems or human physiology... the deficiencies become
far more obvious. It seems to me it should be possible to prove, via accepted
scientific means within physics, that "relational causality" as created
and constrained by organization is what has been missing from the
models at the basis of physics.
In other words, let's look at where the paradoxes are, the
anomalies, the inconsistencies, WITHIN PHYSICS, and see if they exist because
the models lack a relational approach. It's sort of the same idea
as the quantum systems, observation, and time paper by the Iranian
Physicist, Dr. A. M. Ghorbanzadeh, that Tim posted on the list a while
back:
Tim Gwinn
wrote, on 12/01/04: Today I have been reading a fascinating new paper on arXiv
quant-ph, entitled "Quantum mechanics as a result of time broadening of the
classical object" by A.M. Ghorbanzadeh: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0411169
The essential
idea of the paper is that the author has shown mathematically that the
equation describing a quantum particle can be put into a form which appears to
indicate that the appropriate interpretation of a quantum entity is as
being an entity which is extended in time, both into the past and the
future. I think it should also be possible to look at so-called "proven"
tenets of physics and show where the relational aspect was there all along, but
has been ignored or gone unnoticed because it's just accepted. The relational
nature of the universe is so familiar that it sort of becomes invisible
unless you start trying to create complex systems without using this principle
in your attempts.
I'm curious to see what you guys can come up with!
Slainte,
Judith Rosen
|