|
Dear Judith,
let me refuse the occasion of your post about
RR-predictions.
You hit the nail's head when
capitalizing
"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."
as the main point.
Prediction is an obsession of
reductionistic classical physics, to further the model they work in. Is
there any reasonable (long term!) prediction in evolution? or in history?
or would you deny them the status of science?
I believe we are not ready with redefining the RR-type "science-concept", a
theory (hypothesis, or theorem?) to change the way we think in a 'science'
broader than the limited model-based past. Proven? read Popper on proof
(however I don't hold him the lighting pharos for the future of all
scienceS).
I believe the predictional urge is a trap
prepared by opponents of the RR ideas, to weaken his arguments. Don't we fall
into it! It is a retrograde tendency and we may lose the Rosenistic spirit by
looking for compliance to the past classical modelistic views.
Rosenism is broader than the predictive
quantized physical etc. domains of the tenure-seeking science-potentates. True,
it is not YET at the practical achievement level, but a newborn baby does not
recite Sonettes of Shakespeare either.
The name Robert Rosen is acknowledged today even
by "non-Rosenites" as the pioneer in a new way of viewing the world. I would
consider it a degradation to try to 'fit it' into Physics 101.
He fought hard for such acknowledgement, we can
take it from there.
John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:19
AM
Subject: Anyone up to a Rosennean
challenge?
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
|