[FRIAM] Unstrung

[Phil Henshaw]

Well, I'll certainly concede to the valid half.   There are a wide
variety of kinds of physics, all with good puzzles, some approaching the
subject of complex systems from the needed variety of unassuming views.
I'll have a look further at the links, but I think I do also see a very
clear hole.   
 
To me it looks like it's quite big and in the middle, though you may see
it as some insignificant little dot off to the side.    There's a simple
test.   Where you see evidence of things beginning and ending, do you
see the connections as more likely to be local developmental process or
global statistical fates?
 
 

Phil Henshaw                       ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave 
NY NY 10040                       
tel: 212-795-4844                 
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>     

-----Original Message-----
From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] 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 <pfh at synapse9.com> 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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061003/10721ff0/attachment.html