From: julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Subject: Re: behavior and evolution
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 20:22:12 GMT

Thanks for the references, I'll see if the university library has them,
and whether I can understand them( not a given!). I am reading a book
on the brain called "Corticonics:Neural circuits of the cerebral cortex" 
by M Abelese. Cambridge University Press. 1991. It is very readable.
I have not got far but the first few chapters deal with the cellular structure
of the cerebral cortex. Without being arrogant (as a brain is a lot more
complicated than an metal) they are still at the level of classifying
cells by their shape, and staining them. I understand the neuron idea dates
back to the 40s so I feel reasonably confident in saying we do not know
much about the workings of the brain. At least that we do no have any theory
with the predictive power of the theories of physics. (By the by no one 
responded to my question of how many theories in physics there are... 
at my last count there are only five or six: General Relativity (including
special as a "special" case), Relativistic quantum mechanics, Maxwell's
equations and statistical mechanics. Although it is arguable whether QED
and Maxwell's equations are derivable from RQM, anyway)
So I wonder what relation between the theories of very complex things
like living beings, brains, evolution etc, and the "simpler" theories
of physics, like Maxwell's equations is? It seems unreasonable to expect
the same degree of precision and mathematical accuracy, but then one is
drifting away from the main thrust of physics. I am suspicious of theories
that can incorporate anything into their framework 
(eg, possibly my understanding
of evolution) but I do not know what degree of predictability to expect.
Can someone explain the similarities between theories like evolution
and the more mathematical theories of physics?

I can see that as one progresses up some scale of complexity the theories
must become less precise and more ambivalent. So, for example, we can have
QED which is the most accurate theory known, giving 8 or 9 decimal places
for some constants. But it only deals with light and electrons! Any extension
to other particles loses this power. Then you have  the Band theory of metals,
which describes all the properties of metals very well. But except for
some simple cases it is impossible to the calculations exactly, so one
approximates. Then in stat. mech. one makes massive  assumptions
that allow predictions to be made but at the expense of knowing exactly what
the system is doing. I can see a trend here that as the phenomena being
discussed become more and more macroscopic the theories become less
and less mathematically accurate. This suggests that evolution is going
to be a very different kind of theory than QED. I do not see any problem
in my asserting that there are things in the world that no theory, let alone
evolution at its current stage, will be able to predict or explain.
It simply means therre are more things in the universe than we can know.
(Not that this means we should give up trying, I love physics so I am
not about to stop just because I will never know all the answers).
BUT this leaves room for saying that there might be things in the universe
that CANNOT be known by any scientific theory, viz God.
The question is how can one find out?
Ciao
julian    
Newsgroups: talk.origins