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:
> "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
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
For more options, visit this group at