{"id":3156,"date":"2014-11-23T17:38:58","date_gmt":"2014-11-23T22:38:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/?p=3156"},"modified":"2015-02-20T12:40:48","modified_gmt":"2015-02-20T17:40:48","slug":"can-physics-study-behaviors-not-theory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/can-physics-study-behaviors-not-theory\/","title":{"rendered":"But how can physics study behaviors, not the theory?"},"content":{"rendered":"

On\u00a0@SFIScience<\/a>\u00a0David Pines, Co-Founder of the Santa Fe Research Institute\u00a0wrote\u00a0Emergence: A unifying theme for 21st century science<\/a>, describing a critical need\u00a0<\/em>for physics to develop a way to study “emergence<\/strong>” directly, as a natural phenomenon, not just a theoretical models. \u00a0This\u00a0article reposts my\u00a0reply to him on Medium:\u00a0<\/em>But how can physics study behaviors, not the theory?<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

For understanding the emergence of new forms of organization in nature, the\u00a0study of theoretical models seems\u00a0not to be yielding\u00a0the kind of useful understanding we so critically need now. \u00a0 What\u00a0I\u00a0<\/em>introduce is a”dual paradigm view”<\/strong>, to\u00a0address\u00a0the dilemma, a better technique for learning from nature directly. \u00a0Computer\u00a0models\u00a0are fine for testing theory, but need to be used differently to help us follow the continuities of nature. \u00a0 There is a very big conceptual hurdle, getting\u00a0mathematicians\u00a0to\u00a0study the\u00a0patterns of nature directly… \u00a0 The\u00a0physics based method I developed, using\u00a0models of probability to help\u00a0locate individual developmental continuities<\/strong>\u00a0offers\u00a0a direct way to\u00a0address the problem Pines raises. \u00a0It could genuinely offer\u00a0complexity science a better way to study their actual subject, and couple their theories to actively occurring\u00a0emergent processes and events. Among other discussions of it\u00a0on RNS Journal:<\/em><\/p>\n

– a”Dual paradigm view\u201d Can ecosystems be stable?<\/a>,<\/strong>
\n–<\/a>\u00a0Finding Organization in Natural Systems \u2013 \u201cQuick Start\u201d
\n–\u00a0<\/a>Can science learn to read \u201cpattern language\u201d\u2026?<\/a>
\n–<\/a>\u00a0<\/a>In two words\u2026 what defines \u201cscience\u201d?<\/a><\/strong>
\n–\u00a0\u2018Big Data\u2019 and the right to human understanding.<\/a><\/strong>
\n–\u00a0What is a \u201crights agenda”, with ever increasing inequity?
\n<\/a>–<\/a>\u00a0Sustainability = growing profit then steady profit<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Emergence is what we see from cosmic events to the flocking of birds\u2026<\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

David Pines makes a very intelligent assessment, saying in part \u201cThe central task of theoretical physics in our time is no longer to write down the ultimate equations, but rather to catalogue and understand emergent behavior in its many guises, including potentially life itself.\u201d<\/p>\n

I was one of those who figured out why that would become necessary back in the 1970’s. The behavior of complex systems of equations that permit true emergence will not be knowable from the equations. It\u2019s not just their complexity, but that their emergent properties are emergent and dependent of histories of development rather than being formulaic.<\/p>\n

I have also been writing papers and corresponding on the problem very widely since then, and really wondering why I was so unable to get systems thinkers, from any established research community to join me, in studying the commonalities of individual emergent systems. I started with air currents, that generally develop quite complex organization quickly with no apparent organizational input, behave very surprisingly, and seem individually unique.<\/p>\n

I actually developed a fairly efficient scheme for studying any kind or scale of emergent system, using the simple device of starting with the question: \u201cHow did it begin\u201d. What starting with that question does is immediately shift the focus of interest to considering systems as \u201cenergy events\u201d, that you consider as a whole in looking for how they developed. That approach also directs you to look for the event\u2019s naturally defined spatial and duration boundaries, which are highly useful too.<\/p>\n

In addition to being fairly productive as research approach, it also made it easy to skirt lots of spurious questions, like \u201chow to define the system\u201d. With that approach your task is finding how the subject defines itself, still looking for a pattern language of structural and design elements to work with, within and around the system, confirming what you think you find.<\/p>\n

What I finally arrived at in the 90’s was that the equations of energy conservation implied a series of special requirements as natural bounds for any emerging use of energy. I was thinking that the issue was how nature uses discontinuous parts to design continuous uses of energy, and in working with the equations noticed that the notation for the conservation laws were either integrals or derivatives of each other.<\/p>\n

Then one afternoon I just extrapolated an infinite series of conservation laws to define a general law of continuity, and integrated it to find the polynomial expansion describing the boundary conditions for any energy use to begin. It was a regular non-convergent expression, a surprising confirmation of Robert Rosen\u2019s interest in non-converging expressions for describing life, and became very useful as what to look for in locating emergent processes to understand how they worked. I circulated the proof for discussion many times, submitted it for publication a few times and wrote numerous introductions, the following the most recent:<\/p>\n