Title: Message
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]         
explorations: 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]> 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

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/ ).  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

Reply via email to