Carl, Jack, Carl Tollander wrote: > That said, I like theory anyhow, but in order to approach any of these > TOE's, I've found that it helps to seek some understanding of their > historical context (such as from the math and physics community blogs > we've referred to elsewhere). I found some of Lee Smolin's popular > books (Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, The Trouble with Physics, etc.) > to be useful - one wants to understand what problems all these different > TOE folks are trying to answer, and where did those problems come from?
I think there are two aspects involved: first, of course there is a history to research - people build on what's already there, nobody starts from scratch. In such a way, early accidents (=theory choice) can channel scientific research directions for quite some time; and I agree, only by looking at the history of research can one understand current problems. But in the long run, science is successful because avenues that show promise are followed and blind alleys are abandoned. So radical new theories get their chance when old ones do not advance anymore. And then, in hindsight, one will usually see why this or that TOE approach did not work, and where conceptual shifts where necessary; and, on the other hand, seemingly highly disparate theories will suddenly be seen as the same thing, when deep connections are revealed. So, in this sense, one should not be too troubled by "historicity" - many paths may lead to a TOE, and it does not matter which one one takes, as long as one starts to walk. > Personally I think the Markopoulou stuff may be more accessible for > this reason, but nobody should take that as a recommendation. The CDT > stuff has been too hard for me to situate thus far (again, not a I agree that the Markopoulou and (even more so the Dreyer) approach look very interesting. I'll have a look at their papers, thanks for the New Scientist article. >> really understand the concepts and mathematics behind these. Would I require >> a PhD plus many postdoc years to understand these? A lot of math is certainly necessary - but not only the "mechanical" rules (as it is often taught, even at university nowadays) but the concepts which lie behind them. Math is essentially the science of "precise ideas", if you like :-)) Apart from that, I think a lot of earnest thinking by oneself is necessary - you have to have a genuine interest in these things. Knowledge and insight come from "diu noctuque incubando" (by brooding day and night), a saying Nietzsche ascribed to Newton in "The Gay Science" (a wonderful book by the way). Cheers, Günther -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ ============================================================ 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
