[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: Quantum Physics

Thank you very much Ayten.

After I posted that, I had a second thought, which is this. I stated that Rosennean Complexity is "just another model" among models. What I didn't say was that I strongly believe it has all the potential to be the next "Newtonian Mechanics" with which all humankind will grow to ever more powerful understandings of our universe. I wish I had said that then.

Having said that now, I hold that the word "potential" is quite important here. I'm awfully inclined to repeat that famous line: "Where's the beef?"

I say that because, on reflection of years, I really mean *years* of following discussions about RR's work, only a few people have actually demonstrated it in practice. Newton got sucked up and applied immediately, in a very large way and for many different purposes. Thus far, as memory serves, we have seen the prediction of telomeres. That's, at once, profound, and valuable. I don't think it's enough. Most all of the rhetoric I have followed (and contributed to) has been much closer to "my interpretation is more right than yours", and that's just not helpful.

On several occasions, I have asked for a cookbook. Yup. A *cookbook*. Just show me some recipes and I'll personally take Rosennean Complexity to the moon and beyond, or at least, that's how I think about it. In my case, as I have stated elsewhere, I am animated by a personal drive to understand a cancer that tried to kill me. I won. The way I won was to build a model of that cancer, look for ways to defeat it, and then follow those ways. True, several M.D.s were involved -- you need them in order to get the drugs you might require. But, the therapy was thought through and approved by me before any doctor got to apply the drugs.

I'd like to think that, with Rosennean Complexity implemented as a massive, online modeling system, one with which people all over the planet can interact, learn from, and "teach", we will have the opportunity to solve massivly complex, and terribly urgent problems, problems we are, even now, creating. Having said that, I am bracing for the onslought of laughter and jeers that I "just don't get it." I probably don't, but that's all I've got at this time.

If I had any admonishment to this tribe, it would be: "Just give me the damned cookbook and stop arguing!"

Couple more EUROs for the day.
Thanks again, Ayten.
Jack

Ayten Aydin wrote:

Dear Jack,
A very wise post. I agree with every word you put there. It provides a good
context to our ongoing particular process of which  every one of us is
trying to be an integral part with his/her both ontological and
epistemological bagages. Their content is certainly non-stop maturing also
owing to these interactions.
Ayten

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Park" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Quantum Physics




Jerry Zhu wrote:



SJ: All these statements are based on just one of
our
models, namely, Quantum Mechanics. You're implicity
according it a higher ontological status in saying
that  that's the way things "really" are at the
microscopic level. There is no reason for doing so
as QM is just another model.




JZ: Please tell me that I do not have an impression
that you are to discredit three decades' work of Max
Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Louis De Broglie,
Erwin Schrodinger, Wolfgang Pauli, Werner Heisenberg,
and Paul Dirac by replacing their model with another
model.... maybe a Newtonian relational hybrid model?





My 0.2 Euros: I don't think that SJ, or RR, or anyone else on this list
is trying to discredit any *thing* or anybody. The thrust of this list,
it just seems to me, is that the world is larger than any particular or
single model. That's a point that I think Judith Rosen has been trying
to make for as long as I have been following her writing. Sometimes, the
words don't come out in ways which make that clear. I don't have a
problem with SJ's  "...QM is just another model." Possibly a damn good
model, but not necessarily the purveyor of all the truth there is to
find out there. Whatever impression you get from what you read here is,
I believe, a construction in your own mind. You bring to this forum
those biases you already have. Others, myself included, do precisely the
same thing.  There will always be the "santa clause effect" -- possibly
not approprate as a metaphor to all possible cultures, but you have to
have seen what happens to a young kid when it finally dawns that there
is no fat old man in red jammies living in the north pole. We all have
our belief systems, and those systems need, I think, to be flexible,
lest we become religious and lose site of all possible truths to behold.
Each truth, along the way, serves its purpose, and humankind grows.
Let's not turn this forum into a pissing contest like " your jesus is
bigger than mine." That this forum focuses on a particular model, one
which was created by Robert Rosen, should not imply that the Rosenean
model is anything other than "just another model", making its
contribution to the growth in our understanding of the complexites in
which we are immersed. I think it to be an important model, one I hope
to understand and apply some day real soon now.

Cheers,
Jack