Depends on the sub-atomic particles. I'm in the midst of his latest book (simultaneous with Rigden's 'Hydrogen'), and have vowed to finish it sometime. It looks like biologists can indulge in teleological arguments, but physicists (and, heaven forfend, mathematicians) may not. One wonders what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qfwfq would say/has said? Stu inspires me to go back and reread the Calvino. Alas, it's in a box in the Garage somewhere (*sigh*).
Carl Robert Holmes wrote: > And this from Stuart Kauffman in the current New Scientist: > > http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19826556.000-perspectives-why-humanity-needs-a-god-of-creativity.html > > I must confess to being a little disappointed in this article - once > again, it's got the Aunt Sally figure of the ultra-reductionist > physicist who believes that everything from love to wars to economics > can be reduced to interactions between sub-atomic particles. Does > anyone actually know of such a being? And is it possible to actually > find these sort of claims in the literature? > > Robert > > -- > Cycling 100 miles to raise $4500 - support me in raising money for the > Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Please donate at > http://www.active.com/donate/tntnmep/robertholmes > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ============================================================ > 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 ============================================================ 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
