>It's not just science, anything you can put into words or images, maybe
anything you can think, is just a model. You can't think of everything at
once; and what's more there's no reason to suppose that would even be
Which, no doubt, is why evolution provided us with "reductionistic"
Thanks for expressing a congruent basis. I emphasised 'science' because this
is IMO the No1 objected to be a model (like: physics...).
Of course I don't mean to 'think of everything at once' rather to identify
ways how total interconnection is not forgotten about. One cannot 'think of
everything' even within a model: you don't activate all details connected
with a physical concept when thinking about it.
>What is left out is the electromagnetic interaction.<
I tried to go beyond model-aspects in some examples. I would not enlist the
EM interaction as wholistic, rather than model-related.
>But even if you "allowed for" those characteristics (does that mean assert
them?) it would still be a model - a hueristic model as used in engineering.
If someone asked why that was good model, you'd have to answer, either
"Because those are the properties we've measured." OR "We can infer them
I was talking about the 'model' I used for similar purposes. I 'assert' them
(if I understand the word properly) as model-related. Your definitions for a
'good' model are perfect, thank you. Practical.
>I seems to me that really holistic thinking (if it could be done) wouldn't
be thinking at all - it'd be more like Zen meditation.<
I apply the 'w' before 'holistic' to evade connotations to holistic medicine
or holography. My goal is not 'wholistic thinking', it is to develop some
(initial?) understanding about the 'wholeness' and maybe(!) find spome way
to just 'speak' about it. I am not for any meditation (except: if you so
call a speculation) because usually they go in circles of the already
available mindset. Mostly topically restricted (model?).
On the very true quote from John v. Neumann: I try to go a bit more
generalized with the models.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 5:33 PM
Subject: RE: Implications of MWI
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: John M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 4:03 PM
> >To: Stathis Papaioannou; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; email@example.com
> >Subject: Re: Implications of MWI
> >Stathis, you asked th million $ question:
> >"...>Could you briefly explain what reductionism is and why
> >> you don't like it?"<
> >( May I shortchange it into:
> >"what is MY take I call reductionism - and I like it".)
> >Let us start with two concepts I want to use:
> >1. Wholeness:
> >the 'world' (existence, everything) as an interconnected unlimited
> >function, all of it influencing all of it.
> >2. Model: Our mind is not capable to assume it all, so as a mental aid
> >survival we consider "things" in topically, functionally, ideationally
> >in whatever aspect) identifying our
> >REDUCED views, which are applicable for our observational skills. We
> >surround models by boundaries within which we 'observe' and 'recognize'.
> >they are not substantially cutting into those 'observed' features, we
> >to disregard the 'out-of-boundary' effects which, however, are there -
> >a potential of change in the (not currently observed) aspects.
> >Such a limited (maybe wide) fraction of the totality is MY "model".
> >Aristotle spoke about such models consisting only of material parts
> >when he stated that the "total is more than the sum of its components
> >To 'reduce' our view - thinking/observing - to units of such models
> >is what I CALL reductionism. I was reprimanded by philosophers stating
> >different (and several) definitions of philosophical
> >'reductionism' (systems) - this is, however, MY TAKE.
> >Why I don't like it (or do?)
> >Our knowledge base of the world (now I mean: nature) consists of
> >about reductionistic (model) observations. Our history of the cognitive
> >inventory we carry about the world was built upon models, sometimes in
> >disregard of other models (and the totality).
> >This is the ONLY way we with our feeble mind can learn about the world.
> >is how technology was developed. I use it, you use it.
> >I cannot dislike our way of getting along. What I dislike is the
> >consideration of model-deductions as validated onto the totality. Most
> >sciences (all are: models!) do it, except for the new trend of
> >physical considerations (and math) in non-physical sciences. It is also
> >limited, just broader.
> It's not just science, anything you can put into words or images, maybe
> anything you can think, is just a model. You can't think of everything at
> once; and what's more there's no reason to suppose that would even be
> Which, no doubt, is why evolution provided us with "reductionistic"
> >Consider to it the development of the models (sciences) at those levels
> >epistemic enrichment at which observations were made - with means of the
> >time - and evaluation was coined - at the level of the time. Later on
> >epistemic enrichment required additions, ameliorations, but the original
> >reductionist ideas survived in most cases. Quantizing models (applied
> >mathematics) led to equations of incomplete quantities, maybe usable
> >the model-consideration but ultimately leading to paradoxes. One reason
> >how and why QM was necessary to develop.
> >Your example "...a hydrogen atom is made up of an electron and a proton,
> >..." is asking for the question: "and an electron? and a proton?" and so
> >on - but the main deficiency of your (reductionist) statement is to
> >for the alleged material(?) particles as to 'making' a model whithout
> >including functional aspects, total ambience-connections in an
> >totality - dynamism.
> What is left out is the electromagnetic interaction.
> >I (as a colloidal chemist) used another example:
> >there is no such thing as "water = H2O" except for the primitive
> >of 'destroying' water and getting measurement results resembling those
> >H2 and O2 (not H and O) with the proportion describable as in the water
> >formula-weights. None of such "ingredients" allowing for a surface
> >the 4C max density, or hydrodynamics etc., so characteristic for
> But even if you "allowed for" those characteristics (does that mean assert
> them?) it would still be a model - a hueristic model as used in
> If someone asked why that was good model, you'd have to answer, either
> those are the properties we've measured." OR "We can infer them from
> >Reductionistic model-view resulted in an unimaginable edifice of the
> >scientific knowledge-base, all balanced by applied math. As it turned out
> >½century ago, it does not contribute easily to a 'deeper' understanding
> >the world. We realize complexities within models, between models and
> >unrelated to models. Finite and infinite ones.
> >This is why I slant my speculations away from the reductionistic
> >Alas, I am not to far ahead with it.
> >You asked the m$ - I replied the 2c.
> >John M
> I seems to me that really holistic thinking (if it could be done) wouldn't
> thinking at all - it'd be more like Zen meditation.
> Brent Meeker
> The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret,
> they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct
> which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes
> observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct
> is solely and precisely that it is expected to work.
> --- John von Neumann