Disclaimer Note, the following are the opinions of T. H. Pearce and are not necessarily shared by anyone else on this planet.

THE DISCRETE LOGISTIC BIFURCATION DIAGRAM is a model of the universe - partly ordered and partly disordered.

DETERMINISM is the general rule for the universe. The findings of the science of "chaos" show that a deterministic universe can appear random. Therefore, is randomness actually necessary? In my view, it is not. Apparently random data implies that there are either a large number of variables involved or, more likely, that the system under study is chaotic. The only part of science wherein randomness is still claimed is quantum effects (Schrodinger's cat and all that). Personally, I believe that things like radioactive decay are deterministic and chaotic rather than random but we just haven't yet analyzed the correct data to show this. This is not unexpected, unless the critical experiment(s) is performed, the observations will not be made. A critical experiment, in this case, is one which could disprove an order to the sequence of decayed particles (this could be difficult to set up). Never-the-less, It's easy to consider, on theoretical grounds, that at the sub atomic level an atom might have 2 or more deterministic systems whose interaction causes radioactive decay and which for a large amount of atoms results in the exponential decay law.

One further point is concerns free will a question of much interest to medieval philosophers (to be continued).

VISION STATEMENT FOR PETROLOGY and more specifically igneous petrology by T. H. Pearce, dated, June 29, 1994.

There are two facts which in my view must be considered: 1) there is a revolution going on currently in science as we recognize a new paradigm - that chaos or nonlinear dynamics is the rule rather than the exception in nature; 2) as the human race has only one planet on which to live, environmental problems will always be with us and will be exacerbated by the pressure of continually increasing population and the increasing standard of living (read more pollution) in Asia and South America.

These two facts are not unrelated as the environment is a complex nonlinear system embracing as it does the interactions between the solid earth and the biosphere. Arguably, environmental problems are the most complex and difficult problems which the human race will ever have to face. Simply put, the environment is not going to go away.

That said, it must be admitted also that there is a tax and credit crunch being faced by governments everywhere. There is simply not as much money to tackle these difficult problems as is needed or as was available a generation ago. Therefore, it seems to me that the most efficient way to deal with these problems is to re-tool existing sciences to deal with environmental problems. By making use of existing skills and redirecting some of them towards work of interest in the environment, we will efficiently utilize our existing infrastructure and highly skilled personnel. At the same time, we will demonstrate in the most direct way that scientific research is of value to society in unpredictable ways and therefore so-called pure research is worth continued support.

Looking ahead to the next 5 years to say, 2000 A.D. (this was initially written in approx. '94), I see computer-based studies becoming increasingly important. In the field of igneous and volcanic petrology, there will continue to be developments based on the applications of equilibrium thermodynamics, but it will become increasingly evident that kinetics is of general importance and that equilibrium represents at best only one end-member state and may not actually be applicable in many instances. Debate will concern the degree of applicability of the old paradigm (equilibrium) and the new paradigm (chaos).

And now, a wish rather than a prediction. We have a great deal of expertise in Canada in the analytical and theoretical techniques of the solid earth sciences. I would like to see more use of these tools (and personnel) applied to the serious and difficult environmental problems which we face both as a nation and as a species. I'd like to see fewer "turf wars" and more co-operation in the funding agencies. I think the separation of the earth sciences committee into solid earth and environmental earth sciences was, from the perspective above, a bit of a mistake, which hopefully can be corrected by co-operation; otherwise, it should be undone in some fashion.

Back to Tom Pearce's Home Page

This page and its contents are Copyright © of the Department of Geological Sciences, Queen's University 1998-99 (except as noted).
For information or comments about this web service, Email badham@geol.queensu.ca

Back to Geology Home Page