Very interesting Sadovnik. All these years on I find being taught the chemistry of billiard balls a restriction. *Maxwell is such a hero here our dog is named after him. I read the 1997 paper and your comments with great interest, though as you know, this is not my area at all. There is a wide ranging paper here that is more my kind of stuff : http://www.topopleidingen.org/Fractalisme/Constructal-law.pdf* There is even consideration here of economics as physics. On Thursday, 28 November 2013 04:10:41 UTC, socratus sadovnik wrote: > > Can *Physics* be evolutionary theory? > > ===… > > There is a conception of *evolutionary cosmology* > > There is a conception of *evolutionary geology* > > There is a conception of *evolutionary biology* > > There is a conception of *evolutionary zoology* > > There is a conception of *evolutionary psychology* > > . . . . . . .etc > > But there isn’t conception of *evolutionary physics* > > # > > There is a part of science which we call ‘ biophysics ‘. > > Is it possible what one part of this science ‘ bio’ has evolution > > and the other part of the same knowledge ‘ physics’ has not a > > conception of evolution ? > > # > > Physics is the basis of cosmology, geology, biology . . . .etc > > Physics is the basis of the existence. > > Existence is an evolutionary physical process. > > The evolution of nature can be affected only by the laws of physics. > > And therefore the physical process of evolution can be explained > > on the basis of the fundamental laws and formulas of Quantum Theory. > > ==.. > > Book: What is your dangerous idea? > > / Edited by John Brockman / > > Article: > > Seeing Darwin in the light of Einstein; > > Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin. > > / by Lee Smolin. / > > ===. > > / Page 115 / > > Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin suggests that > > natural selection could act not only on living things > > but on the properties defining the various species > > of elementary particles. > > / Page 117 / > > We physicists have now to understand Darwin’s lesson: > > The only way to understand how one out of a vast number > > of choices was made, which favors improbable structure, > > is that is the result of evolution by natural selection. > > / Page 117 / > > Now the only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature, > > and for uniformity in general, is to suppose them results of evolution. > > / Page 118 / > > And I believe that once this is achieved, Einstein and Darwin > > will be understood as partners in the greatest revolution yet in > science, . . . > > / Lee Smolin. / > > =.. > > Can quantum particle evolve ? > > Is it possible to explain the evolving process of quantum particle? > > Israel Sadovnik Socratus. > > =. >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
