Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Growth of natural systems

 :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.''

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Growth of natural systems

 * – (View AfD

I have proposed Growth of natural systems for deletion, because of WP:OR, WP:V, personal tone and redundancy (subject is already covered under emergence) 1Z 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter, If you understand what I mean I think you'd agree that growth is definitely a physics problem.

I've been studying 'emergence' as a natural process for many years, much longer than it has been a field of theoretical analysis. I have a broad rigorous method for probing them as individual autonomously evolving structures. The success I've had is considerable but I have not yet found any journal, or conversation really, interested in close observation of emerging systems as a addition to the scientific method. I'm making some new progress but, it's clear that the whole community is confounded by the idea that anyone would want to do that (well, unless you know someone different).

The reason appears to be that I look at emerging 'properties' as the byproduct of emerging 'processes', and locate them from the growth of organizationally independent physical networks with interiors. Their evolution appears to progress by what may best be called their 'exploring' their environments rather than either by following a system of rules or being controlled by their environments. My best tool is identifying the periods when the progressions of change with all higher derivatives of one sign, the growth periods and their beginning and end. Once you learn how, it tells you a huge amount about what is going on inside. The fact that my approach readily produces durable new findings is enough to tell me it has validity.

I've always thought of it as physics, only not about control. To do the work I need to leave things alone, and just watch with unusual sensitivity. The 'laws' you find are solid and neat, and would be highly useful. The people studying complex systems and using the term 'emergence' are plentiful, but they don't talk about it as a *physical* process at all, nor about needing a major innovation in the scientific method just to clearly identify their subject.

I admit I have an old fashioned idea of what physics is about. The modern idea is that it is about mathematics, and that the physical world is a manifestation of that mathematics. The older view is that mathematics is descriptive, and the physical processes are not well represented when reduced to a set of measures.

Well, I think it's fairly self-evident that any form of multiplying local organizational evolution is not predicted by the present laws of physics, and it happens all over the place if you look.

Is that sufficient in your mind to say that one of the most common natural phenomena is not yet adequately explained? If you can suggest how to rephrase things I'd be glad to have tips.

Phil Henshaw


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.