Hi Ray,

     I think your interpretation is correct.  Complex Systems is a big 
thing among some physicists and mathmeticians, including Murray Gell-Mann 
who, along with others, instigated the Santa Fe Institute where these 
studies go on.  Off hand, I believe there may be something  to this, after 
all, so far no one has been able to solve the many-body problem.  Perhaps 
this is somehow all related (?).  Interesting.

Thanks,
Richard

+ ------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Ray F. Cowan wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Just for fun:  I ran across this abstract on the preprint server today (from 
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151):
> 
> > More Really is Different
> > Authors: Mile Gu, Christian Weedbrook, Alvaro Perales, Michael A. Nielsen
> > (Submitted on 31 Aug 2008)
> >
> >     Abstract: In 1972, P.W.Anderson suggested that `More is Different', 
> > meaning that complex physical systems may exhibit behavior that cannot be 
> > understood only in terms of the laws governing their microscopic 
> > constituents. We strengthen this claim by proving that many macroscopic 
> > observable properties of a simple class of physical systems (the infinite 
> > periodic Ising lattice) cannot in general be derived from a microscopic 
> > description. This provides evidence that emergent behavior occurs in such 
> > systems, and indicates that even if a `theory of everything' governing all
> > microscopic interactions were discovered, the understanding of macroscopic
> >  order is likely to require additional insights.
> 
> If I understand what they say, they are claiming that the usual reductionist
> view of physics (take everything apart into its fundamental constituents, 
> find out how they work, then you know everything there is to know) is 
> wrong.  Do you get the same impression?  Or are they saying something less
> weird?
> 
> Thanks,
> --Ray
>