Reductionism

[steve_bank]

Reductionisn for this thread means for any real physical system the whole equals the sum of the parts. A car is the working sum of the individual parts.

Any arguments against physical treductionism?

 

[untermensche]

What is a "part"?

If a motor uses an electric field is the field a "part"?

 

[rousseau]

Reductionisn for this thread means for any real physical system the whole equals the sum of the parts. A car is the working sum of the individual parts.

Any arguments against physical reductionism?

Not from me.

But I'm sure there will be.

 

[steve_bank]

What is a "part"?

If a motor uses an electric field is the field a "part"?

What do you think?

- - - Updated - - -

No one can possibly reject reductionism.

 

[ryan]

In a block universe (eternalism) nothing emerges. Everything is eternal without change. However, this seems to go against our perception of reality.

But with a growing block universe, things become. The present emerges. This maybe just for the consciousness, or it might be that a new identity of the whole universe constantly emerges. Either way, new perceptions emerge, or the present emerges - something emerges!

Something seems to be emerging while much stays conserved.

 

[DBT]

If a certain property emerges over the course of time and events, this emergent property is still related to the activity of its constituent parts....

 

[fromderinside]

First, as you note DBT it is not emergent. It is only observed out of context, again as you note. However such presentation tends to encourage those who believe in Dean Drives, Gods, Faeries, whatevers.

 

[untermensche]

What is a "part"?

If a motor uses an electric field is the field a "part"?

What do you think?

- - - Updated - - -

No one can possibly reject reductionism.

Not close to an answer.

 

[rousseau]

First, as you note DBT it is not emergent. It is only observed out of context, again as you note. However such presentation tends to encourage those who believe in Dean Drives, Gods, Faeries, whatevers.

These days I'm more often realizing that such out of context presentation is what gives people meaning. Knowledge seekers want to know how things are, others want Gods and Faeries.

Makes me wonder where that leaves knowledge seekers. These days more interesting for me to watch the fire than try to extinguish it.

 

[steve_bank]

That feeling of something emerging may be a bowel movement.

An example of a system where energy or mass is not reducible via reductionism.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Reductionisn for this thread means for any real physical system the whole equals the sum of the parts. A car is the working sum of the individual parts.

Any arguments against physical treductionism?

Well, I would first need to know what it is you mean exactly. But maybe you'd have to make up your mind first.

Either it is the whole equals the sum of the parts.

Or it is the whole is the working sum of the individual parts.

I can guess what may be the attraction of each proposition but also its major flaw so I can't help you decide. You're on your own here.

Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.
EB

 

[ryan]

That feeling of something emerging may be a bowel movement.

An example of a system where energy or mass is not reducible via reductionism.

Do you believe that the future exists? For example, do you believe that the Samsung phone existed 100 years ago at a position in the block universe (eternalistic universe)?

 

[steve_bank]

That feeling of something emerging may be a bowel movement.

An example of a system where energy or mass is not reducible via reductionism.

Do you believe that the future exists? For example, do you believe that the Samsung phone existed 100 years ago at a position in the block universe (eternalistic universe)?

We observe change, cosmology extrapolates back and forward. The universe exists, the question as to whether the future or past exists or not has no meaning.

In an infinite universe matter and enegy can never be lost or created, the forms change.

 

[Juma]

Reductionisn for this thread means for any real physical system the whole equals the sum of the parts. A car is the working sum of the individual parts.

Any arguments against physical treductionism?

Nah. The universe is the sum of the partshoe they interact and there current movement and positions.

 

[ryan]

That feeling of something emerging may be a bowel movement.

An example of a system where energy or mass is not reducible via reductionism.

Do you believe that the future exists? For example, do you believe that the Samsung phone existed 100 years ago at a position in the block universe (eternalistic universe)?

We observe change, cosmology extrapolates back and forward. The universe exists, the question as to whether the future or past exists or not has no meaning.

Clearly we can't move on until you explain why it is meaningless to question presentism vs eternalism vs growing block universe. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#PreEteGroUniThe

Think about where science is right now with the indeterministic nature of QM. Suppose that QM really is undetermined. This means that the universe in the future will not be the same by the time it gets to the present. Or, the universe simply does not exist in the future, hence the growing block universe.

The present would really emerge.

 

[steve_bank]

Past,present, and future are subjective human concepts.

The past exists as memory and records.

This is old stuff. There is no present, once it happens it is gone. The future doesn't happen until it is the present.

And so on and so forth etc etc.

There are many philosophical interpretations of QM, some extreme.

QM is a set of theories that have been proven in that they can be used to do useful things, like design LASERS and transistors.

Some think QM infers life after death.

Something may supersede QM like Relativistic Mechanics did to Newtonian Mechanics.

 

[untermensche]

Past,present, and future are subjective human concepts.

What is an objective human concept?

 

[skepticalbip]

Past,present, and future are subjective human concepts.

What is an objective human concept?

Concepts are not objective.

 

[fromderinside]

What is a "part"?

If a motor uses an electric field is the field a "part"?

So is there any difference between that and a funnel placed in a gravitational field determining time by controlling rate of sand flow through it? I ask you. Is there?

Juxtaposition is not cause.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Reductionisn for this thread means for any real physical system the whole equals the sum of the parts. A car is the working sum of the individual parts.

Any arguments against physical treductionism?

Nah. The universe is the sum of the partshoe they interact and there current movement and positions.

Yeah, I suppose that must be true of "the universe". I can't see how it wouldn't be true.

Yet, I also don't see how my subjective experience could possibly fit in this neat conceptual scheme.

Presumably, you would say it's just not part of "the universe".

Yet, I'm quite definite my subjective experience exists. I'm far more certain that my subjective experience exists than I am of "the universe".

And that's just old stuff, too. Descartes basically explained the same thing.

Oh, well, I can wait.
EB