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
>
