Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"

[John M <***>]

Dear Ayten,
in your very comprehensive and professional post you wrote:
>>...
>> At present I am reading a book entitled " The Next Fifty Years: Science
in
>> the First Half of the Twenty-First Century", edited by John Brockman,
>> Vintage Books 2002. Among the articles (25) the ones by Ian stewart on
The  Mathematics of 2050; ...<<

I wish you a good time to reading this book. I was squeezed by commi party
journalists in the 50s in Hungary to put together something about the future
of scientific endeavor for them for - say - the next 50 years and my answer
was:
I can tell about yesterday, fantasize about today, but tomorrow is unscience
fiction.
NOBODY could predict 50 years ago the novelties we experience now. It is not
a developmental route of a well planned activity, the new ideas, novelties,
even the mistakes and their utilization just occur, unexpectedly both in
time and in topics.
All we can talk about is a prediction what could we do better in those
topics which ARE HERE already. Static prediction of the present.
Even with the knowledge of RR's all natural maximum models and the
possibilities what unlimited network of networks activate in all of them
back and forth (I mean: with the impossible knowledge base) could we
(perhaps) predict and precompose the NEW.

I am not talking about technical gadgets, not GM or other genetic ideas,
nor Star Wars, not even the internet or VR, I am talking about the ways we
think. Not only this narrow tribe here on the list, but more or less
similarly "infected" (with wholistic complexity) ones surface on wider
lists, ensembles, - and in select literature as well. The 'thinking' part of
mankind thinks differently today from a similar cut 50 years ago. Which was
different from the image another 100 years earlier. Tradition, family,
society, entertainment, even "religious" thought changes in unpredictable
fashion, exponentially I could say.

This is also an aspect of Rosennean thinking. No static model is valid.
The relations are not definable, because by the time you write it down they
changed. The 'everlasting' rules change in weeks. Science changes.
Change into what? nobody with today's mind can foresee that.

Ayten, enjoy the book. If Ian Stewart is involved, it can only be good.

John M

---- Original Message -----
From: "Ayten Aydin" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"

not copied