The example of heliocentric vs geocentric views is a good one to show the 
limitation of the reductionist impulse. While Earth happens to be a part of a 
heliocentric topology, the fact that it is easy to mistake the Sun for the more 
'moving object' is not in any way an endorsement of the position that stars do 
not move, or that all appearances of moving objects are misinterpretations.

In order for the reductionist-determinist philosophy to be valid under this 
analogy it would have to be the case that all forms of relative percepton are 
physically impossible. If a person walks around a bird then it would mean that 
it is impossible for a bird to fly around a person.

The fact that we can conceive of any alternative to determinism cannot be 
explained within determinism. The geocentric view is a perfectly legitimate 
possibility based on perception and realivity which happens to be misleading in 
this particular case. Other ideas and mythologies are similarly grounded in 
ontologically coherent priciples that happen not to apply. It is not, however, 
valid to presume that we can make up extra-ontological possibilities in the 
same way that it is not possible to mistake blue for a color that doesn't 
exist. Yes, a sphere can look like a disk, but a disk cannot look like a sphere 
if you are living in a two dimensional universe where a sphere is ontologically 
inconceivable. Determinism presents an even more restrictive case since the 
meaning of determinism refers specifically to our access to conceivable ideas. 
If we can conceive of anything outside of determinism, even as a fiction, then 
the source of that fiction must be a conceivable possibility. Even mistakes 
have to make sense.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to