Le 13-mars-07, à 18:55, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Of course this is assuming that QM (which was discovered by applying
reductionist methods) is the correct EXACT theory - which is extremely
doubtful given its incompatibility with general relativity.
All right. But note that both String
Le 14-mars-07, à 04:42, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
On 3/13/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron
+
proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its
components;
Nor by any juxtaposition of
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 14-mars-07, à 04:42, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
On 3/13/07, *Bruno Marchal* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an
electron +
proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its
Bruno and Brent:
Are we back at the Aris-total i.e. the sum considered more than its
(material-only!) components? Complexity of an assemblage includes more than
what a reductionist 'component-analysis' can verify. Qualia, functions, even
out-of-boundary effects are active in identifying an
John M wrote:
Bruno and Brent:
Are we back at the Aris-total i.e. the sum considered more than
its (material-only!) components? Complexity of an assemblage includes
more than what a reductionist 'component-analysis' can verify.
But components are only part of a reductionist model - it
On 3/16/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know what you mean by a physical knots. In any case the
identity of a knots (mathematical, physical) rely in its topology, not
in such or such cartesian picture, even the concrete knots I put in
my pocket. The knots looses its
Le 12-mars-07, à 12:37, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
OK, but it seems that we are using reductionism differently.
Perhaps. I am not so sure.
You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron +
proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 12-mars-07, à 12:37, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
OK, but it seems that we are using reductionism differently.
Perhaps. I am not so sure.
You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron
+ proton because it
Le 11-mars-07, à 17:56, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Reductionism means breaking something up into simpler parts to explain
it. What's wrong with that?
Because, assuming comp, neither matter nor mind (including perception)
can be break up into simpler parts to be explained. That is what
OK, but it seems that we are using reductionism differently. You could say
that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron + proton because it
exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its components; or you could say
that it can be reduced to an electron + proton because these two
On 3/11/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SP: ' ... it could take a long time to get there ... '
MP: But is that according to the time frame of the laughing devil who
threw me in there and who remains safely out of reach of
acceleration-induced time dilation, or my wailing ghost
Le 10-mars-07, à 18:42, John M a écrit :
I don't deny the usefulness of science (even if it is reductionist) ...
How could science be reductionist? Science is the art of making
hypotheses enough clear so as to make them doubtable and eventually
testable.
No scientist will ever say there is
Bruno,
please read my italic comments between your lines.
Thanks for Stathis to rush to my rescue (reductionsm),
Stathis wrote:
Reductionism means breaking something up into simpler parts to explain it.
What's wrong with that?
I will try to write my own version, a bit (not much) different.
On 3/10/07, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i ENVY YOU, guys, to know so much about BHs to speak of a singularity.
I would not go further than according to what is said about them, they
may
wash off whatever got into and turn into - sort of - a singularity.
Galaxies, whatever, fall into
Cher Quentin,
let me paraphrase (big):
so someone had an assumption: BH. OK, everybody has the right to fantasize.
Especially if it sounds helpful.Then
some mathematically loaded minds calculated within this assumption with
quantities taken from other assumptions (pardon me: quantizing within
John M:
Cher Quentin,
let me paraphrase (big):
so someone had an assumption: BH. OK, everybody has the right to fantasize.
Especially if it sounds helpful.
Well, the basic assumption was more broad than that: it was that general
relativity is a trustworthy theory of gravity. There's plenty
Dear Jesse,
thanks for the cool and objective words.
I take it back (not what I said: I mean the topic) further. Our edifice of
physical science
is a wonderful mental construct, balanced by applied math, all on quantities
fitting the reduced models of historical observations from the hand-ax on.
SP: ' ... it could take a long time to get there ... '
MP: But is that according to the time frame of the laughing devil who
threw me in there and who remains safely out of reach of
acceleration-induced time dilation, or my wailing ghost which/who's mind
and sensoria will be ever more
i ENVY YOU, guys, to know so much about BHs to speak of a singularity.
I would not go further than according to what is said about them, they may
wash off whatever got into and turn into - sort of - a singularity.
Galaxies, whatever, fall into those hypothetical BHs and who knows how much
Dark
Hi John,
Singularity is just a name that means that the solutions of the equations
describing the BH gives infinity... It's what is a singularity. Does
the infinity is real (we must still be in accordance about what it means)
is another question, but accepting GR as a true approximation of
SP:' You wouldn't necessarily be squashed if you were inside the event
horizon of a black hole provided that it was massive enough. Being
inside the event horizon is not the same as being inside the singularity.'
MP: Two thoughts come to my suspicious mind.
1/ [Not far from the
On 3/9/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MP: Two thoughts come to my suspicious mind.
1/ [Not far from the post-Freudian speculation :-] ... Attendance
within the event horizon of a common or garden galactic variety black
hole would seem to incorporate a one-way ticket *to* the
22 matches
Mail list logo
