Quick aside follows:
klaus krippendorff wrote:
> dear chuck,
> [...]
> of course, a theory is always about something (and so are ordinary
> propositions). and any theory states its conditions of application. the
> theory of gravity has to do with how material bodies attract each other. it
> says nothing (to my knowledge) about thermodynamics or about how a brain
> works. there are claims in physics to have found a theory of everything,
> but these are abstract and general to the point of being understandable only
> by a few experts (or believers).
Just as a point of interest, no physicist I've ever heard of has ever
said/wrote that a TOE (theory of everything) is *currently* available.
However, it does seem likely we will find such a creature within, I figure,
20 years, especially if we keep up at the current rate.
And while the theories that are being developed that may evolve into TOEs
(such as different versions of superstring theory) are abstract, they are
usually quite understandable in a qualitative way when properly presented.
There have been a series of articles in Scientific American over the past
few years that cover much of this ground. Not a single equation anywhere
in 'em. And lots of analogies to things like violins (for string theories,
for example) that most of us have a very intuitive feel for.
I can say the same thing about other fields that are more grounded in daily
lives. Computational fluid dynamics, for instance. The math in CFD scares
me. But at the qualitative level, there's little in CFD that can't be
related to everyday experiences like feeling your own pulse, or watching a
babbling brook.
Cheers.
Fil
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|