please read my italic comments between your lines.
Thanks for Stathis to rush to my rescue (reductionsm),
Reductionism means breaking something up into simpler parts to explain it.
What's wrong with that?
I will try to write my own version, a bit (not much) different.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb
Le 10-mars-07, à 18:42, John M a écrit :
I don't deny the usefulness of science (even if it is reductionist) ...
How could science be reductionist? Science is the art of making hypotheses
enough clear so as to make them doubtable and eventually testable.
My take on "reductionist" is to 'reduce' the observation to a
boundary-enclosed "model" as our choice. It is a necessity for us, because we
are not capable to encompass the totality and all its ramifications into our
mind's work at once. Reduced (reductionist ) view is the way how humanity
gathered our knowledge of the world. (Probably other animals do the same thing
at their mind-level).
What I see here - and thank you, Bruno, for it, - you are using a more
advanced view of science than what I referred to as the conventional -
historic, topically fragmented "sciences" of old. Where e.g. physics is based
on the 'primitive' physical (material) worldview and biology is what Darwin
Reductionist sciences established our technology. You use it, I use it. We
just start to 'think' beyond it.
No scientist will ever say there is a primitive physical universe or an
ultimate God, or anything like that. All theories are hypothetical, including
"grandmother's one when asserting that the sun will rise tomorrow. The roots of
our confidence in such or such theories are complex matter.
I wish we had more of "your" scientists. Academia as a general establishment
is not so advanced yet.
Don't confuse science with the human approximation of it. Something quite
interesting per se, also, but which develops itself.
Lobian approximations of it are also rich of surprise, about "oneself".
Now this is exactly what I mean. I would like to read a definition of
'science' as you formulate it. Then again: how many 'scientists' have ever
heard of a Lobian m?
We are living here (list) in a vacuum and I was talking non-vacuum.
"Science" or better, the scientific attitude, invites us to listen to what
the machine can say and dream of, nowadays. How could such an invitation be
Here we go again: is the 'machine' superhuman? does it tell us things beyond
our comprehension? How? "We" (Loeb etc.) invented and outlined it and its
functionality. How can it be beyond those limits?
I would say science is modesty. It is what makes faith necessary and possible.
"Faith" in what? Not in 'hearsay', not in Alice-land, not in (really) reduced
models of age-old worldviews. The 'supernatural' is a cop-out for the modesty
"I know not" .
With comp, when science or reason grows polynomially (in a trip from G to G*
for example), then faith "has to" grow super-exponentially.
I hope you have (Mark's) PLAIN ENGLISH TRANSLATION to that in
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at