Terry McDonough wrote:
>>No matter how long you
>>try you cannot deduce evolutionary biology from the principles of
>>chemistry, even if it is evident that biology cannot be inconsistent
>>with chemistry.
Wojtek Sokolowski replied,
>I do not want to be a contrarian, but I do not buy the ireducability
>argument. That argument would hold only if the universe we study was neatly
>divided into compartments corresponding to the respective discipline.
I don't want to contradict a non-contrarian, BUT . . . the reason the
irreducibility argument does hold is precisely because the _disciplines_
(and not the universe) are "neatly divided into compartments correponding to
the respective disciplines".
Perhaps "in theory" a unified natural science would be possible but such a
unified science would have to start from a different place than our sciences
have started from. Whether or not our sciences could ever discover such a
starting point for a unified science is completely a matter for speculation.
See Heisenberg, "uncertainty" and Archimedes, "point".
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
knoW Ware Communications |
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art [and in spreadsheets]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | does life unfold as fate."
(604) 669-3286 |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
