Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Le 12-mars-07, à 12:37, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > > > OK, but it seems that we are using "reductionism" differently. > > > > > > Perhaps. I am not so sure. > > > You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron > + proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its > components; > > > > Nor by any juxtaposition of its components in case of some prior > entanglement. In that case I can expect some bits of information from > looking only the electron, and some bits from looking only the proton, > but an observation of the whole atom would makes those bits not genuine. > It is weird but the quantum facts confirms this QM prediction.
Not only that, but QM admits of negative information, so some of the information you get from observing the parts may be cancelled out in a more comprehensive measurement. > > > > > > or you could say that it can be reduced to an electron + proton > because these two components appropriately juxtaposed are necessary > and sufficient to give rise to the hydrogen atom. > > > In general this is not the case. > > > > And if the atom is just a part of UD*, well, that's just another, > more impressive reduction. > > > > But just comp, without the quantum, makes it implausible that an atom > can be individuated so much that it makes sense to say it is just a part > of the UD. And QM confirms this too. To compute the EXACT (all decimal) > position of an electron in an hydrogen atom, soon or later you have to > take into account of white rabbit path, where the electron will, for > going from position x to the position y you are computing, follow the > path x too earth, reacts locally and transforms itself into a white > rabbit running for the democrat election in the US, loose the election > and come back to y. Of course this is assuming that QM (which was discovered by applying reductionist methods) is the correct EXACT theory - which is extremely doubtful given its incompatibility with general relativity. Brent Meeker >Same with the UD, the object "atom of hydrogen" is > only defined relatively to an infinity of first person plural > expectation dependong on the WHOLE UD*. There is no sense to say an atom > is part of the UD. It is "part" of the necessary discourse of > self-observing machine. Recall comp makes physics branch of machine's > psychology/theology. > > > > As for knots, can't any particular physical knot be described in a > 3D coordinate system? This is similar to describing a particular > physical circle or triangle. > > > Not really because the knot is a topological object. Its identity is > defined by the class of equivalence for some topological transformation > from your 3D description. If you put the knot in your pocket so that it > changes its 3D shape (but is not broken) then it conserve its knot > identity which is only locally equivalent with the 3D shape. To see the > global equivalence will be tricky, and there is no algorithm telling for > sure you can identify a knot from a 3D description. > People can look here for a cute knot table: > http://www.math.utoronto.ca/~drorbn/KAtlas/Knots/index.html > > > > Only if God issues everyone with immaterial souls at birth, so that > reproducing the material or functional structure of the brain fails > to reproduce consciousness, would I say that reductionism does not > work... > > > OK, but then you identify reductionism with comp. I identify > reductionism with the idea that something is entirely explainable in > some finitary theory. From this I can explain that comp can be used to > refute all reductionist theory of both matter and mind (and their > relation). > > I am aware it is a subtle point, but if you understand the Universal > Dovetailer Argument (UDA) from step 1 to 8, in the version: > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.htm > then you should, I think, understand that the idea that there is > anything made of something, although locally true and useful for many > practical purpose, is just wrong, globally. Even with just comp, but > this is also entailed by the quantum empirical facts (even with the > many-worlds view: if not they would not interfere). People can ask if > they are not yet convinced by this. I have refer this by saying that if > comp is true, physics is a branch of bio-psycho-theo-logy. matter > emerges (logico-arithmetically, not "temporally") from mind and number. > > You can attach a mind to a body, like children does with dolls, but you > cannot attach a body to a mind, you can and must attach an infinity of > "relative bodies" to a mind. "relative bodies" are only defined by > infinity of arithmetical relationships, not by sub-bodies. > > (I know this contradicts Aristotle notion of Matter, but see Plotinus > for old platonist reasons, a priori independent of comp and QM, to > already suspect that Aristotle was wrong). > > > unless you add the soul as an element in the reduction. > > > > Of course, but *that* would make any explanation a reductionism. > > Bruno > > > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > On 3/12/07, *Bruno Marchal* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Le 11-mars-07, à 17:56, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > > Reductionism means breaking something up into simpler parts > to explain > > it. What's wrong with that? > > > Because, assuming comp, neither matter nor mind (including > perception) > can be break up into simpler parts to be explained. That is what > UDA is > all about. First person expection (both on mind and matter) are > already > global notion relying on the whole UD*. > And empirical physics, currently quantum mechanics, confirms that > indeed, we cannot explain matter by breaking it into parts. That is > what "violation of bell's inequality" or more generally "quantum > information " is all about. This has been my first "confirmation of > comp by nature": non-locality is the easiest consequence of comp. > > A good (and actually very deep) analogy is provided by the > structure of > knots (see the table of knots: > > http://www.math.utoronto.ca/~drorbn/KAtlas/Knots/index.html > > A knot is closed in its mathematical definition (unlike shoe > tangle). > You cannot break a knot in smaller parts, so that the whole > structure > is explained by the parts. Knots, like many topological structure, > contains irreductible global information. The same for the > notion of > computations (and indeed those notions have deep relationship, > see the > following two impressive papers: > > http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/samson.abramsky/tambook.pdf > http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0606114 > > I know that Derek Parfit call "comp" the reductionist view". > this is a > very misleading use of vocabulary. Comp is the simplest > destroyer of > any reductionist attempt to understand anything, not just humans. > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > On 3/12/07, Bruno Marchal < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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. > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> 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". > >> > >> "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 reductionist? > >> > >> I would say science is modesty. It is what makes faith > necessary and > >> possible. > >> > >> With comp, when science or reason grows polynomially (in a > trip from G > >> to G* for example), then faith "has to" grow > super-exponentially. > > > > > > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---