On 17 Sep, 18:52, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
> on 17.09.2010 14:33 1Z said the following:
>
>
>
> > On 26 Aug, 17:37, David Nyman<david.ny...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> Whatever composite categories we might be tempted to have recourse
> >> to - you know: molecules, cells, bodies, planets, ideas,
> >> explanations, theories, the whole ball of wax - none of these are
> >> available from this perspective.  Don't need them.  More
> >> rigorously, they *must not be invoked* because they *do not exist*.
> >> They don't need to exist, because the machine doesn't need them to
> >> carry all the load and do all the work.
>
> > OTOH, they must exist because if you have two hydrogens and an
> > oxygen, you inevitably have the compound H2O. You also have many
> > other compounds which are not dreamt of in our philosophy. the set of
> > compounds is basically the powerset of the set of basic entities.
> > there may not be any objective facts about what is a "true" compound,
> > but the powerset unproblematically includes everything we
> > conventionally regard as a compound as a powerset
>
> The next citation by Robert B. Laughlin (Nobel laureate in physics)
> could be of interest here:
>
> http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2010/08/matter-and-little-ghosts.html
>
> "By the most important effect of phase organisation is to cause objects
> to exist. This point is subtle and easily overlooked, since we are
> accustomed to thinking about solidification in terms of packing of
> Newtonian spheres. Atoms are not Newtonian spheres, however, but
> ethereal quantum-mechanical entities lacking that most central of all
> properties of an object an identifiable position. This is why attempts
> to describe free atoms in Newtonian terms always result in nonsense
> statements such as their being neither here nor there but simultaneously
> everywhere. It is aggregation into large objects that makes a Newtonian
> description of the atoms meaningful, not the reverse. One might compare
> this phenomenon with a yet-to-be-filmed Stephen Spilberg movie in which
> a huge number of little ghosts lock arms and, in doing so, become
> corporeal."
>
> Evgenii

Physics may well be less reductionist than the reductionism
of the philosophers. But the reductionism of the philosophers
still does not entail elimination

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to