[FRIAM] Unstrung

[Carl Tollander]

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: pfh at synapse9.com <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ============================================================
> 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