Good summary of Bogdanov controversy

A good summary of the Bogdanov controversy is in the New York Times today. URL is http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/arts/09PHYS.html Some of the folks we like to quote here are quoted in the article, including Lee Smolin, John Baez, Carlo Rovelli, etc. Also, the latest Wired print issue has

oscillons as an outstanding but unknown TOE candidate

hi all. I dont recall I mentioned the oscillons phenomenon on this list before (the archive seems to be down as I write this). so, FYI. some months ago I was going thru an old file of paper physics clippings/leads and ran into one on oscillons from 1996 based on a new york times article (see

Re: Good summary of Bogdanov controversy

From: Osher Doctorow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sunday Nov. 10, 2002 5PM Thanks to Tim May for the site reference. I read the story, and it's quite interesting. It's the first time I've looked at this in detail, although I heard a rumor about it. I have a few comments that I'd like to make now. 1.

Re: Good summary of Bogdanov controversy

From: Osher Doctorow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sunday Nov. 10, 2002 5:45PM Duraid, Well said! I am very happy that some Australians have a sense of humor, which I hadn't realized until now. I know that British and Irish humor are excellent. USA humor varies between the mediocre and the sublime.

Riffing on Wolfram

Any comments? Can anyone point me to similar speculations? Thanks, Eric A collection of thoughts (very much a work in early progress) provoked by chapters 9 and 12 of A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram. --- Caveat: The following was written hastily and in somewhat sloppy,