Forwarding to FRIAM two replies accidentally sent only to Carl, fyi Because the question of growth is a generalized physical system organizational development problem crossing all scales of space, time and phenomena. You find it everywhere, it has enormous relevance to all fields, and there are highly useful universal principles for what to expect and how to explore it's internal processes. Granted, it's a pattern of unstable and changing organization, so it does not have a fixed decription, so a different approach is needed. Still, it's one of the core physical phenomena that produce the forms that are stable and is the kind of subject physics should have useful global models for so people can know what they're working with.
We've got no guidance to offer those who have tied the health of the planet to physically reorganizing our life support system at exponentially accelerating rates forever, for example. ... followed by oh, well... left out the essential qualification of "observable" when referring to "all" scales of space and time. It's hard to conclude much about things you cant's watch happening, too large or too small, too fast or too slow, or, like quantum events, having no process yet identifiable at all.... > OK, why is growth a physics problem and not, say, an algebraic topology > problem > or a genetic regulatory net problem, or an epigenesis problem, or a > sociology problem, > or something? All would state the problem somewhat differently, drawing on > different insights. So, if you can answer that, you can approach > agreement upon > language on how to state the problem and can possibly add it to Unsolved > Problems > in Physics. Otherwise.... > > Carl > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > Can't help but mention, but really not meant to be argumentative for > > all the good reasons, and since several things on the list are exactly > > the kinds of things I'm interested in, but notably missing from the > > great list of > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics is growth. > > So I added it. Let's see if someone erases it without coming to > > agreed language on how to state the problem! > > > > > > > > Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > > NY NY 10040 > > tel: 212-795-4844 > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> > > > > -----Original Message----- > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Robert Holmes > > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:29 AM > > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Unstrung > > > > > > > > On 10/3/06, *phil henshaw* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > So I picked up last week's New Yorker to find one of it's > > thorough and insightful articles of the same name, in this > > case by Jim Holt on the demise of string theory, and the books > > by Smolin and Woit. What caught my attention was the apparent > > fact that what caused string theory to suddenly take over all > > of theoretical physics is that physics has run out of data! > > Apparently everything they've thought of trying to explain has > > been > > > > > > > > Errrr...how to put this politely? Rubbish! The following lists are > > by by no means definitive but there's enough content to establish > > the falsity of "everything they've thought of trying to explain > > has been": > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics#Future_directions > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics> > > > > I think you may be reading more into Holt's comment about "the > > absence of data in physics" than is intended (BTW, article is > > still available at http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/ > > <http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/>). It seems to be a > > somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment that occupies less than half a > > sentence and Holt does not expand on it. IMHO, Holt gives much > > more weight to the "sociology" explanation. > > > > R > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > -- Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com -- Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com -- Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
