tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4718590941586269256.post4886515603716261088..comments2023-08-14T21:18:14.796-04:00Comments on Honest Toil: Wilson on the Missing PhysicsChrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10838633162146762394noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4718590941586269256.post-75195979795138116472009-02-09T09:26:00.000-05:002009-02-09T09:26:00.000-05:00This is a fair place to object, I think, and I am ...This is a fair place to object, I think, and I am reluctant to disagree with you on a point of physics! I take it, though, that Wilson rejects the idea that a system described by a differential equation with a unique solution is sufficient to reach the deterministic conclusion. It seems that he would ask also for the motivation for the boundary conditions and perhaps also for the make-up of the Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10838633162146762394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4718590941586269256.post-52671337767630970962009-02-08T13:48:00.000-05:002009-02-08T13:48:00.000-05:00I'm sorry, but Wilson's analysis of the dome doesn...I'm sorry, but Wilson's analysis of the dome doesn't make sense to me. He says:<BR/><BR/>"Any friend of determinism should be cautious about allowing forces to be glibly divided into 'reactive' and 'constraint' categories, for that's how Norton's loss of determinacy secretly enters the scene" (p.6).<BR/><BR/>What does that have to do it? Throughout the paper, Wilson describes a general a problem Bryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07379669532781325751noreply@blogger.com