Comments on: Standard Model = Dead in the Water? http://warren.igsig.org/2007/05/21/standard-model-dead-in-the-water/ a sprawling compendium of short-stacked musings Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:24:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.2 By: Dan http://warren.igsig.org/2007/05/21/standard-model-dead-in-the-water/#comment-4 Dan Thu, 24 May 2007 07:07:18 +0000 http://warren.igsig.org/2007/05/21/standard-model-dead-in-the-water/#comment-4 I've actually been reading a book recently on issues like this -- "An Introduction to General Systems Thinking" by Weinberg. The author makes a very interesting observation. He claims that there are systems which science cannot adequately study. With complex systems which operate sufficiently randomly, we can use statistics to accurately describe them by measuring a large population (due to the Central Limit Theorem). He calls these systems (such as ideal gas laws PV = nRT) "unorganized complexity" (populations/aggregates). With not-so-complex systems which operate deterministically (those which we often design and build), we can analytically observe them. These systems he calls "organized simplicity" (machines/mechanisms). The key insight is that there is a third region, "organized complexity" (systems) which Weinberg claims is beyond the reach of science. If it isn't random enough, then statistics can't be used. If it has too many interacting parts, then analytical approaches can't be used. Hence, science is at a standstill. The brain falls into this middle region (as does most of biology). We try to describe it analytically, but there are too many possible factors which could affect the outcome. We try to describe it statistically, but there are too many important deviations from the mean. As you mention, new insights are necessary to make headway. I’ve actually been reading a book recently on issues like this — “An Introduction to General Systems Thinking” by Weinberg. The author makes a very interesting observation. He claims that there are systems which science cannot adequately study.

With complex systems which operate sufficiently randomly, we can use statistics to accurately describe them by measuring a large population (due to the Central Limit Theorem). He calls these systems (such as ideal gas laws PV = nRT) “unorganized complexity” (populations/aggregates).

With not-so-complex systems which operate deterministically (those which we often design and build), we can analytically observe them. These systems he calls “organized simplicity” (machines/mechanisms).

The key insight is that there is a third region, “organized complexity” (systems) which Weinberg claims is beyond the reach of science. If it isn’t random enough, then statistics can’t be used. If it has too many interacting parts, then analytical approaches can’t be used. Hence, science is at a standstill.

The brain falls into this middle region (as does most of biology). We try to describe it analytically, but there are too many possible factors which could affect the outcome. We try to describe it statistically, but there are too many important deviations from the mean.

As you mention, new insights are necessary to make headway.

]]> By: DAVE http://warren.igsig.org/2007/05/21/standard-model-dead-in-the-water/#comment-6 DAVE Tue, 29 May 2007 23:47:02 +0000 http://warren.igsig.org/2007/05/21/standard-model-dead-in-the-water/#comment-6 I have talked to a physics grad student about this issue, and he says that it will take a non-physicist to change things. By the time you finish physics grad school you're too brainwashed with the standard model. I really think something productive (predictive) should come out of computer science/information theory. Think simulated reality... Good luck. I have talked to a physics grad student about this issue, and he says that it will take a non-physicist to change things. By the time you finish physics grad school you’re too brainwashed with the standard model. I really think something productive (predictive) should come out of computer science/information theory. Think simulated reality… Good luck.

]]> By: DAVE http://warren.igsig.org/2007/05/21/standard-model-dead-in-the-water/#comment-12 DAVE Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:02:25 +0000 http://warren.igsig.org/2007/05/21/standard-model-dead-in-the-water/#comment-12 Ron Paul for president! Ron Paul for president!

]]>