On 26 June 2014 00:08, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> You mean reducible in explanation, but not eliminable in fact. >> Temperature is explained by kinetic energy of molecules, but you can't >> eliminate temperature and keep kinetic energy of molecules. There's a >> difference between eliminating in an explanation or description and >> eliminating in fact. > > I must admit I can't see that personally. If temperature is, in fact, > molecular kinetic energy, then it doesn't actually exist at any level, it's > just a convenient fiction, surely?
Spot on, Liz. Actually, we can consider both or either to be such fictions, in terms of their mutual reducibility to some (exhaustive and assumptively irreducible) basement level (string, anyone?). My point is that the fundamental tenet of any 3p reductionism is "bottom-up all the way down". If that leads to inconvenient consequences (not to mention a nasty dose of cognitive dissonance) don't blame me, blame the assumptions. David -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
