"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...
Scientific American Special Edition - Everchanging Earth.
The article on Mountain Building -



Building - wow! It WOULD be funny, if there were not suchlike
dills as promote this sort of rubbish, and editors who think that it's
good for a screw of YOU. Does it really deserve the status of
'scientific debate', when any child can see the stupidity in it?



So you're not a quack after all? You see, it's not the idea that
matters to people, it's who's saying it. Without a long resume
and all sorts of charts, it can't be true they say.

For instance, I've been rattling on about how biological evolution, through
the concepts of self organization or complex adaptive systems, can define
the physical universe. That biology is the true source of our fundamental
laws of the physical universe. They scoff and call it ridiculous.

Yet perhaps the most respected theoretical physics institute
around, Los Alamos, refers to the latest in condensed matter physics
as "complex adaptive matter".


The Los Alamos branch of the Institute for Complex Adaptive Matter

"ICAM's present scientific agenda is dominated by strongly correlated matter
and biological physics. There has long been a flow of techniques from the
physical sciences to the biological sciences, but the paradigms from biology
of complexity and emergent phenomena (not immediately foreseeable with
fundamental knowledge at shorter distance and time scales) can also
inform the physical sciences."
http://www.lanl.gov/mst/ICAM/workshops.html


The very same science, complexity science, is also the source
of the very latest cyclic cosmology, from those quacks over at
Princeton. A dept run by that flake that came up with
inflationary theory a while back.
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/



And those fly-by-night folks at the Univ of Chicago seem to
have lost their senses too.

University of Chicago Magazine

The Complexity Complex

"There is a funny dance that some Chicago physicists and biologists do when
the topic of complexity theory comes up. They squirm, skirt the issue, dodge
the question, bow out altogether unless they're allowed alternative terms.
They twirl the conversation toward their own specific research projects:
yes, the projects involve systems that are "rich" and "complicated" and
not explained by natural laws of physics; yes, systems that develop
universal structures which appear in other, completely different systems
on a range of scales; yes, systems that begin with simple ingredients
and develop outcomes that are-there's no other word for it-complex"

"More often than not these articles cite researchers at the interdisciplinary,
18-year-old Santa Fe Institute, whose single-minded insistence that laws
of complexity can explain nearly any phenomenon rankles many an academic."
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0212/features/



What I find fascinating is that most seem to think 'modern science'
has most everything pretty much handled. In truth the best scientific
discoveries are yet to come. And not by a little either.

I mean, everyone seems to chase that grand theory, the one
concept that will explain 'it all'. Yet when at last confronted
with it, they find it's 'too simple' to be believed or meaningful.

When I spout something like, oh, that the 'answers' to the
physical, living and even spiritual universe can be seen
from the sensation of a cool breeze over your skin, or
a passing cloud, they snicker.

But it's true.

From complexity comes sheer simplicity.




Jonathan



s





Well
of course it does, for the hidden logic of "feedback". But you can
see what they're reaching towards, as regards 'uplift', ..can you not?
It's just a qeustion of how long it will take for them to get there.
(Tut Tut, ..and the road already mapped out too.)

(Just thought I'd do a nice promotional job for Scientific American,
for promulgating such esotery.)