please read my italic comments between your lines.
Thanks for Stathis to rush to my rescue (reductionsm),  
Stathis wrote:
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 
to say:
  "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 
non-mathematico lingo.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to