> And yet, SOC is only one of the theoretical options that can resonate > together. What I am interested to know is: do yo think that SOC is a good > point to start from when moving from physics to biology?
Dear Plamen: Most renditions of SOC with which I am familiar involve single homogeneous variables. I am of the opinion that physics is preoccupied with homogeneity, whereas biology is all about heterogeneity. Therefore, I am skeptical whether descriptions in terms of homogeneous variables (e.g., matter, energy, charge, mass) can ever be sufficient descriptors of biological systems. Mind you, they may still be true (e.g., Bejan's constructual law), but because they do not explicitly embody heterogeneity, they will always be inadequate long-term descriptors of living systems. The common assumption has been that one can advance from homogeneous variables to heterogeneous systems via the formulation of intricate boundary-value statements connecting the many dimensions, but this is usually impossible for both epistemic and ontological reasons. (One is unable because of combinatorics to predicate the full link-up conditions [epistemic], and the underlying many equations possess insufficient stability to track complex systems [ontic].) Somehow, explicit account needs be taken of system heterogeneity, such as is done with some network metrics. The world of complexity is one of *massive* heterogeneity. Physics, the study of the homogeneous, can't cut it alone. (As Stu Kauffman puts it, we have reached the end of the "Era of Physics". Not that physics won't still advance, but that not every event and behavior in the complex world needs to be referred back to it.) My personal opinion, of course. Best wishes, Bob _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
