DoggerDan
The first step of applied mathematics. Engineering is the second step. By comparison, most of the other sciences use relatively little math.
The discussion centers around participants' favorite definitions of physics and science, exploring the distinctions between physics and other scientific disciplines such as chemistry and biology. It includes various perspectives on the nature and scope of physics, its relationship with mathematics, and the definitions of science.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the definitions of physics and science, with multiple competing views and ongoing debate about the relationships between these fields.
Some definitions presented may depend on specific interpretations of terms like "motion" and "general truths," and there are unresolved questions regarding the boundaries between physics, chemistry, and other sciences.
humanino said:Prigogine I know his work rather well, and I do not think we are talking about the same issues, at all.
Are you talking about Byung Chan Eu ? Can you please point out to a technical reference describing the equation you are referring to and how the equation was suggested ? I believe this work amounts to using a large computer simulation and fit it with a simple function. I hope I have the wrong reference.
You say yourself that reductionism is dead because of findings in the late XXth century. But Poincare stumbled onto chaos long before that, in fact at the end of the XIXth century, and it just took a long time for non-mathematician to realize what chaos and non-linear dynamics mean. A good reference would be "Structural Stability and Morphogenesis" for instance, much earlier than what you quote. Of course you will not get non-linear behavior out of a simple Shrodinger equation. Anyway, I will wait until a proper reference has been provided.
DoggerDan said:The first step of applied mathematics. Engineering is the second step. By comparison, most of the other sciences use relatively little math.