Re: mathematics is a model of reality and not reality
quote:Prigogine also emphasized that "this contradiction cannot be removed as long as one tries to understand living systems by the methods of equilibrium thermodynamics". It order to solve these "contradictions", Prigogine  developed the theory of dissipative structures, i.e., the structures that appearing in systems that are far from equilibrium. Later, it turned out that the theory did not allow overcoming the aforementioned "contradictions." In fact, it made the
quote: even more intricate. It later became obvious that Prigogine's views do not agree with the second law of thermodynamics [20, 22, 24]. This is so in many respects. Suffice it to say that, in the general case, the Prigogine entropy (S' or S ) has no full differential. Therefore, his theory cannot be regarded as thermodynamic. This is a kinetic theory based on an "entropy" (Prigogine's entropy, S') which can be neither calculated nor measured.
quote:This debases science and education. Moreover, it can be said that several "second laws of thermodynamics" have appeared, none of which having anything to do with reality. A good example is the aforementioned Prigogine's  interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics. This interpretation "extends" the well-known incorrect and indemonstrable statement by the great Boltzmann , who underestimated the important concepts put forward by Clausius and Gibbs. The interpretation suggested by Prigogine has practically conquered the "scientific" world and still remains one of the trendiest interpretations of the second law of thermodynamics. I am well aware that it would be hopeless to argue with the visionaries that create or support these concepts: they have developed an excellent method for leading such debates. They unfailingly give lots of arguments, which are mostly quotations from published or oral statements made by other visionaries or by insufficiently informed scientists. It is often emphasized that those scientists are well known or even famous. However, the visionaries forget that scientists that are well known and famous in one field are not necessarily professionals in others. The only way to withstand this conjuncture is to refer the readers to classical works and serious textbooks written in a highly professional milieu of world-renowned scientific schools with centuries-long traditions.
I am sorry I got the letters in your name backward. That only meant I did focus on your posts.
This is not really a stream of consciousness but relevance that requires MUCH discussion lest one ONLY has a probablistic philosophy. I prefer to discuss what physical unification has to do with biology. Von Weisacker had his go in German. This is English but sans a third party interpretation.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-23-2005 08:59 AM
It seems that if one took Bateson's word "inhibition" to have had the wrong modifer and be "PRO" such that his opinion (used by GOULD in SETH)ofMUTATIONS being than LOSS OF PROHIBITIONS ( not loss of the inhibitor as Monod had spaced it temporally) the whole beneficial/notbeneificalinformedbasechangemutantcategories recieves a new life regardless of minor discussions on Kimura also, the ID debate becomes legistalatively but not scientifically to be a difference of use of 1st seperation ammendment for the phsycotheology THAT STILL DOES NOT EXIST but could potentially where power of the people and what is prohibited BY the states exists or could exist by law. Current poltics is not down with this. This IS NOT a matter for science but IS for biophilosophy should it learn. The mathematics, whatever they may be, by anyone MUST get beyond the "geometrical" pattern of Gould's move over to some phenotypes that DO express the algebra of the genetic change as well as any critical Bridgman biologist that Gould succeeded in opening a SMALL theoretical space for. ------------------ Berberry, yes, I will do some new clear audio posts, I just dont know yet what the most clearest thing is that needs to be said.