onents. I suppose an example might be
> that gravity emergent from the stat-mech of matter fields, in which case it
> doesn't help to learn more details of the matter fields.
Reductionism is typically non-sensical in computer science. Nobody would accept
an explanation of why Deep
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:42 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Although they have confirmed many theoretical predictions, particle
>> accelerators haven't discovered anything surprising since 1962 when it was
>> found that Muon Neutrinos were not the same as
gress
>> will come from, remind them that methodological reductionism is not the
>> same as theory reductionism.*
>>
>
> Reductionism is always true but it may not always be relevant, a deep
> understanding of String Theory will not make you a better meteorologist.
&g
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 5:27 AM Philip Thrift wrote:
*> the next time a particle physicist tries to tell you that we need higher
> energies to probe shorter distances because that’s where progress will come
> from, remind them that methodological reductionism is not the same as
ou that we need
higher energies to probe shorter distances because that’s where
progress will come from, remind them that methodological reductionism
is not the same as theory reductionism.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/04/what-is-reductionism.html
@philipthrift
--
You received th
emind them that methodological reductionism is not the same as
theory reductionism.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/04/what-is-reductionism.html
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from
Quite a strong belief you have within you, young padawan.
On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 23:11:10 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I bet that biology is reducible to physics and the belief, since that is
> what it is, a belief, is one reason we have missed the boat on the life
> sciences
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 7:01:50 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> A bacteria is just far beyond current days technology. Even a complex
> protein is beyond our technology.
>
> Bruno
>
Bacterial synthetic biology
"Bacterial synthetic biology is a scientific discipline that deals with
rom scratch, some years ago.
A bacteria is just far beyond current days technology. Even a complex protein
is beyond our technology.
Bruno
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal
> To: everything-list
> Sent: Wed, Jul 24, 2019 5:59 am
> Subject: Re: Histori
> On 24 Jul 2019, at 12:17, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 4:59:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Biology is certainly different from physics, but that does not mean that
> terrestrial biology is not conceptually reducible to physics.
>
> Like with
, scientists have
backed off why this is not so. Unless we invoke the elan vitale? :-D
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list
Sent: Wed, Jul 24, 2019 5:59 am
Subject: Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism
On 22 Jul 2019, at 22:33, spudboy100 via
"Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. If your question is "Can anything
be known without a consciousness knowing it?", then again, consciousness
can only know itself.
On Monday, 22 July 2019 16:26:17 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 5:46:25 AM UTC-5, Cosmin
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 4:59:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Biology is certainly different from physics, but that does not mean that
> terrestrial biology is not conceptually reducible to physics.
>
> Like with mechanism, physics remains different from arithmetic and
> computer
ns (only
definitions).
Bruno
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal
> To: everything-list
> Sent: Mon, Jul 22, 2019 9:31 am
> Subject: Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism
>
>
>> On 22 Jul 2019, at 11:44,
s not physics
>>
>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/historical-contingency-and-the-futility-of-reductionism-why-chemistry-and-biology-is-not-physics/
>>
>> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/historical-c
Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list
Sent: Mon, Jul 22, 2019 9:31 am
Subject: Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism
On 22 Jul 2019, at 11:44, Philip Thrift wrote:
Why chemistry (and biology) is not physics
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com
torical-contingency-and-the-futility-of-reductionism-why-chemistry-and-biology-is-not-physics/
>
>
> Partly why *I'm a materialist, not a physicalist*.
>
> But this has implications for arithmetical reality (?).
>
>
> If Chemistry is not physics, it would mean that ours substitut
> On 22 Jul 2019, at 15:26, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 5:46:25 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
> I think you make the old age confusion between epistemology and ontology.
>
> Can anything be known without a brain knowing it?
A brain cannot know anything, I would
> On 22 Jul 2019, at 11:44, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> Why chemistry (and biology) is not physics
>
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/historical-contingency-and-the-futility-of-reductionism-why-chemistry-and-biology-is-not-
On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 5:46:25 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> I think you make the old age confusion between epistemology and ontology.
>
Can anything be known without a brain knowing it?
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
I think you make the old age confusion between epistemology and ontology.
--
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
*Why chemistry (and biology) is not physics*
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/historical-contingency-and-the-futility-of-reductionism-why-chemistry-and-biology-is-not-physics/
Partly why *I'm a materialist, not a physicalist*.
But this has implications
the pythagorean neutral monism, but is still
very close to it in some texts.
Bruno
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
wrote:
Leibniz's platonism and the false problem of reductionism
In physics and psychology we have two enigmas if materialism rules,
those
Leibniz's platonism and the false problem of reductionism
In physics and psychology we have two enigmas if materialism rules,
those of spontaneous mental intentions (so that there is no free will) and also
that of spontaneous (probabililistic) events such as we find in statistical
mechanics
of reductionism
In physics and psychology we have two enigmas if materialism rules,
those of spontaneous mental intentions (so that there is no free will) and
also
that of spontaneous (probabililistic) events such as we find in
statistical mechanics
and quantum mechanics.
But under Leibniz's platonism
Reductionism is the view that all mental processes can be reduced or
explained by brain mechanisms.
I thought it was the view that phenomena can be explained by simpler
phenomena (until such time as you hit bottom) ?
On 30 October 2013 00:09, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Roger
the less intelligent ones.
This might be more susceptible to computer emulation
This is completely different than that of Materialism,
or reductionistic (logical atomism) model of mind which is
essentially mob rule:
Reductionism | Define Reductionism at Dictionary.com
noun 1. the theory that every
the less intelligent ones.
This might be more susceptible to computer emulation
This is completely different than that of Materialism,
or reductionistic (logical atomism) model of mind which is
essentially mob rule:
Reductionism | Define Reductionism at Dictionary.com
noun 1. the theory that every
the less intelligent ones.
This might be more susceptible to computer emulation
This is completely different than that of Materialism,
or reductionistic (logical atomism) model of mind which is
essentially mob rule:
Reductionism | Define Reductionism at Dictionary.com
noun 1. the theory
to any unifying theory.
Only pseudo-scientist (or some scientist during the
week-end) can be reductionist.
I'm afraid I don't understand the version of
reductionism to which you so
strongly object. Are you perhaps referring to the
mistake of trying to
explain too much with too little
theory.
Only pseudo-scientist (or some scientist during the week-end) can be
reductionist.
I'm afraid I don't understand the version of reductionism to which you
so
strongly object.
I guess I react strongly because the comp theory is sometimes confused
with reductionist interpretation
-end) can be
reductionist.
I'm afraid I don't understand the version of reductionism to which you so
strongly object. Are you perhaps referring to the mistake of trying to
explain too much with too little? Or are you referring to what Daniel
Dennett has called greedy reductionism: where something
32 matches
Mail list logo
