Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?
On May 8, 6:03 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, but the theory is our idea of that "partial match" and is a human > construct. As a human idea, the theory is something separate. But the > objective reality of nature (whatever it is) is not something separate to > the objective reality of nature. Maybe we are quibbling about words, but it > is in the spirit of Occam's Razor to have the minimum number of entities > possible. > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou No! The theory is not the *idea* of the partial match. The theory (the parts which are correct) *is identical* to to the match. The distinction between map and territory is dissolving. Again, you need to keep your eye on the ball and think computer science and information here. The theory *is information*. The reality is *information*. Therefore, *for the particular parts of the theory which are correct* , those parts of the theory (the abstracted information content) *are identical* to the reality. Reality is informationtheory is information...and at the intersection (where the two over-lap and at the right level of abstraction) it's *identical* information. Think of it another way. OOP (Object Oriented Programming) draws no distinction between an objective 'object' and an abstracted 'class'. You can create abstract classes (which correspond to for instance abstract ideas) but these classes ARE THEMSELVES OBJECTS. Think about it. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?
On May 8, 4:22 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I have now given three clear-cut exmaples of a failure of > > reductionism. > > (1) Infinite Sets > > But there is no infinite set of anything. Says who? The point is that infinite sets appear to be indispensible to our explanations of reality. According to the Tegmark paper just recently posted, math concepts map to physical concepts. We can infer that there must be some physical concept which can be indentified with an infinite set. And the existence of this physical thing would be a violation of reductionism. To escape from the conclusion we either have to deny that infinite sets are real, or else deny the one-to-one match between the mathematical and physical world. > > >(2) The Laws of Physics and (3) Quantum Wave > > Functions > > > It is established that all of these concepts are indispensible to our > > explanations of reality and they are logically well defined and > > supported. But none of these concepts can be reduced to any finite > > set of empirical facts. > > That's because we invented them. No, it's because reductionism is false. We invented the concepts, but (as I mentioned in the previous post) for concepts which are useful there has to be at least a *partial* match between the information content of the concepts and the information content of reality. Therefore we can infer general things about reality from knowledge of this information content. Where informational content of our useful concepts is not computable, this tells us that there do exist physical things which also mimic this uncomputability (and hence reductionism is false). > > QM isn't even a physical theory; it's just a set of principles for > formulating physical theories; as classical mechanics was before it. Exactly so! I agree. QM is really an abstract *high-level* explanation of reality. This sounds strange, because the QM description is usually thought of as the *low level* (basement level) description fo reality, but it ain't. It's true that QM may be the basement level in the sense of *accuracy* (best scientific model so far), but *not* in the ontological sense. As you point out, in the *ontological* sense it's really a sort of high-level *reality shell* - an abstracted set of principles rather a complete physical principle in itself. My reality theory is a three-level model of reality (as I mentioned earlier in the thread). And QM is actually at the *highest* level of explanation! This is the complete reverse of how QM is conventinally thought of. It makes more sense of you think of the wave function of the whole universe. Then you can how QM is actually the *highest level* (most abstract) explanation of reality. Next level down are functional systems. Then the lowest level is the particle level. All three of these levels of description are equally valid. This is somewhat similair to Bohm's two-level interpretation (wave function at one level, particles the other level). Only I have inserted a third level into the scheme. *Between* the QM wave level description (high level) and the aprticle level description (low level) is where I think the solution to the puzzle of consciousness may be found. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?
On 08/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well of course I agree with you in this case. 'Election' is a human > construct. That's why it was a horrifyingly unfortunate typo on my > point. The point is that if you try to apply the same reasoning to > everything, you'll end up saying that *everything* is just a human > construct - and throw the scientific method out the window. We don't > 'construct' those things in reality which are objective. Our concepts > *make reference* to them. The concepts may be invented, but there has > to be a match between at least *some* of the informational content of > our theories and the informational content of objective theory (or > else the concepts would be useless). Think computers and information > here. Objective reality is information. And our concepts are > information too. So there has to be a partial match between the > information content of useful concepts and objective reality. That's > why we can refer a failure of reductionism from the concepts we > invented which proved useful. > Yes, but the theory is our idea of that "partial match" and is a human construct. As a human idea, the theory is something separate. But the objective reality of nature (whatever it is) is not something separate to the objective reality of nature. Maybe we are quibbling about words, but it is in the spirit of Occam's Razor to have the minimum number of entities possible. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?
On May 8, 3:56 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 'The Laws of Physics' don't refer to human notions (they certainly > > are not regarded that way by scientists > > They are by the scientists I know. The *knowledge* we have of the laws of physics are human notions. But the laws of physics *per se* are not. See other post. Think computer science and information. Our concepts are information and so is reality. So in the case of useful concepts there has to be a partial match between the information content of the concepts and the information content of reality. This means we can infer properties about reality from our concepts. The distinction between map and territory is not absolute. A simulated hurricane for instance, has *some* of the exact same *information content* as a real hurricane. > > >- the whole notion of an > > objective reality would have be thrown out the window if we thought > > that there were no objective laws of physics since as mentioned, > > physics is the base level of reality), but are precise mathematical > > rules which have to be (postulated as) *universal* in scope for the > > scientific method to work at all. > > Sure, they are precise mathematical systems, which the scientist hopes and > intends to describe (part of) an objective reality. But the map is not the > territory and scientists know it. See above. And read Tegmark's paper! ;) In the case of mathematics the distinction between map and territory is breaking down. Remember what we agreed on earlier - math is *both* epistemological (a map we use to understand reality) *and* ontological (the territory itself) > > Brent Meeker- Hide quoted text - > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?
On May 8, 4:06 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 08/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Silly spelling error in my last post - I meant 'electrons' of course. > > Let avoid talk of 'electrons' then, and talk about 'Quantum Wave > > Functions' then, since surely even Russell must agree that QM fields > > are fundamental (at least as far as we know). You can't say that QM > > fields are just human inventions - take away the base level and you > > have no objective reality left to argue about! ;) > > Actually I didn't pick it as a typo - I thought you were talking about > elections. Elections are complex things, involving candidates, voters, > timing, standards of empirical verification and many other rules. They also > involve concepts such as "fairness", "democracy", "deceitfulness" and so on. > You can't physically grasp an election or draw a circle around it. > Nevertheless, calling it an election is just a shorthand for a collection of > matter behaving in a certain way. There is no extra election-substance > instilled by the universe which makes the difference between an election and > an otherwise identical non-election, and there is no election-entity > distinct from the behaviour of matter which we observe and call an election. > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou Well of course I agree with you in this case. 'Election' is a human construct. That's why it was a horrifyingly unfortunate typo on my point. The point is that if you try to apply the same reasoning to everything, you'll end up saying that *everything* is just a human construct - and throw the scientific method out the window. We don't 'construct' those things in reality which are objective. Our concepts *make reference* to them. The concepts may be invented, but there has to be a match between at least *some* of the informational content of our theories and the informational content of objective theory (or else the concepts would be useless). Think computers and information here. Objective reality is information. And our concepts are information too. So there has to be a partial match between the information content of useful concepts and objective reality. That's why we can refer a failure of reductionism from the concepts we invented which proved useful. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Silly spelling error in my last post - I meant 'electrons' of course. > Let avoid talk of 'electrons' then, and talk about 'Quantum Wave > Functions' then, since surely even Russell must agree that QM fields > are fundamental (at least as far as we know). You can't say that QM > fields are just human inventions - take away the base level and you > have no objective reality left to argue about! ;) Sure you can. QF are a human invention to describe what we think the micro world of the standard model is like. But physicist already know it must be wrong, because it is not consistent with the other fundamental theory of physics, general relativity. This has no effect on their belief in an objective reality, it just implies that they don't know what it is yet. But they do know a lot about it. > > Quantum Wave Functions are yet another example of a thing which cannot > be reduced to finite emprical parts. It is in fact an established > fact that QM wave functions cannot be *directly* emprically verified. > Any emprical fact or set of facts you can point to *cannot* fully > capture the QM Wave function! It is something abstract which exists > over and above any empirical facts. This is yet another example of > the failure of reductionism. What can be directly empirically verified?...Descartes, "I think therefor I am...I think". Even your perception of an ordinary object like a table or chair is theory-laden. > > I have now given three clear-cut exmaples of a failure of > reductionism. > (1) Infinite Sets But there is no infinite set of anything. >(2) The Laws of Physics and (3) Quantum Wave > Functions > > It is established that all of these concepts are indispensible to our > explanations of reality and they are logically well defined and > supported. But none of these concepts can be reduced to any finite > set of empirical facts. That's because we invented them. > > The only way to evade the conclusion that reductionism is false is (as > shown by Stathis's argument strategy) to deny that any of these > concepts has objective reality. For example to evade a failure of > reductionism as regards 'inifinite sets' one has to argue that > infinite sets are not objectively real, or not physically real. You > might get away with that argument for something as esoteric as > 'Inifnite Sets' (after all there is some legitimate doubt that these > things are real), but once you reach a concept which is clearly > fundamental and neccessery for physical reality to exist at all (ie > Quantum Wave Functions), your argument has lapsed to pure solipsism. > > Which is more likely: The laws of physics and QM wave functions are > all human fictions, or reductionism is false? It has to be one or the > other. QM isn't even a physical theory; it's just a set of principles for formulating physical theories; as classical mechanics was before it. Since we already know that QFT must be inconsistent with the dynamics of spacetime, it's an easy choice. Brent Meeker "The laws of physics are "ruleless rules" that arise not from any plan but from the very lack any plan. They are the laws of the void." --- Vic Stenger --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?
On 08/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Silly spelling error in my last post - I meant 'electrons' of course. > Let avoid talk of 'electrons' then, and talk about 'Quantum Wave > Functions' then, since surely even Russell must agree that QM fields > are fundamental (at least as far as we know). You can't say that QM > fields are just human inventions - take away the base level and you > have no objective reality left to argue about! ;) Actually I didn't pick it as a typo - I thought you were talking about elections. Elections are complex things, involving candidates, voters, timing, standards of empirical verification and many other rules. They also involve concepts such as "fairness", "democracy", "deceitfulness" and so on. You can't physically grasp an election or draw a circle around it. Nevertheless, calling it an election is just a shorthand for a collection of matter behaving in a certain way. There is no extra election-substance instilled by the universe which makes the difference between an election and an otherwise identical non-election, and there is no election-entity distinct from the behaviour of matter which we observe and call an election. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On May 7, 4:06 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 07/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> We have here a clear example of an indispensible *physical* concept >>> which *cannot* be broken down or reduced to any finite lower level >>> descriptions. This proves that reductive materialism is false. >> I'm not sure that it is necessary to consider the laws of physics a separate >> ontological category. A zoologist might study the behaviour of chimpanzees, >> take notes, and summarise these notes in a paper for others to read and test >> by seeing if chimpanzees do indeed behave as claimed. The "rules of >> chimpanzee behaviour" is not separate to how chimpanzees actually behave nor >> does it have any causal effects of its own. Similarly, a physicist might >> study the behaviour of electrons and write a paper for others to read and >> test by seeing if electrons do behave in the way claimed, but these "laws of >> physics" regarding electrons are not separate to electron behaviour and have >> no causal role in electron behaviour. Electrons and chimpanzees behave in >> the way they are inclined to behave, and if we can discern patterns by >> observing them, that's just our good fortune. >> >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou > > Say what!! this is not a valid analogy since the laws of physics are > absolutely the fundamental level of reality, where as dsecriptions of > chimpanzee behaviour are not. > > 'The Laws of Physics' don't refer to human notions (they certainly > are not regarded that way by scientists They are by the scientists I know. >- the whole notion of an > objective reality would have be thrown out the window if we thought > that there were no objective laws of physics since as mentioned, > physics is the base level of reality), but are precise mathematical > rules which have to be (postulated as) *universal* in scope for the > scientific method to work at all. Sure, they are precise mathematical systems, which the scientist hopes and intends to describe (part of) an objective reality. But the map is not the territory and scientists know it. > > If an election were merely 'inclined' to behave in a certain way > (which by the way is the pre-scientific world-view) , then what in > fact could be the cause of its behaviour? An election is not a > teleological (and non-fundamental) agent like a chimpanzee, it is a > fixed fundamental building block of reality! There could be no > explanatory theory of election behaviour without postulating some > external (and objective) laws of physics capable of 'acting upon' the > election. This seems to confuse the laws of democracy with the laws of physics. The former are enforced by the judicial system. The latter are descriptive. > > The whole scientific method is based on the notion *external* laws of > physics combined with empirical data. So in practice the term *laws > of physics* is definitely being used as if it as external objective > 'thing' or ontological category. The whole point is that its use this > way in practice (indispensible for the scientific method to work) > means that it can't in fact be broken down into merely the sum of our > empricial observations. That's true, a scientific theory always goes beyond merely summarizing observations - but it isn't always right when it does so. I think you need to read Vic Stenger's book, The Comprehensible Cosmos. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: A sequel to my 1996 "ultimate ensemble theory" paper
Thanks to all of you who have posted/sent interesting and helpful comments on this paper. I hope to respond to them once teaching finishes and I (hopefully) come up for air later this month. In the mean time, I'd like to alert you to http://www.fqxi.org/community/index.php If you're interested, you'll be able to apply for research grants here next year to think about the sort of big questions discussed on this list, regardless of your nationality and whether you're in academia or not. Moreover, you're welcome to participate in the discussion forum that was just launched today at http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum.php, so please consider copying stuff you post to this list to the Ultimate Reality section there. This has the advantage of getting your ideas out to lots of unusually open-minded scientists (see http://www.fqxi.org/members.html). Cheers, Max ;-) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?
Silly spelling error in my last post - I meant 'electrons' of course. Let avoid talk of 'electrons' then, and talk about 'Quantum Wave Functions' then, since surely even Russell must agree that QM fields are fundamental (at least as far as we know). You can't say that QM fields are just human inventions - take away the base level and you have no objective reality left to argue about! ;) Quantum Wave Functions are yet another example of a thing which cannot be reduced to finite emprical parts. It is in fact an established fact that QM wave functions cannot be *directly* emprically verified. Any emprical fact or set of facts you can point to *cannot* fully capture the QM Wave function! It is something abstract which exists over and above any empirical facts. This is yet another example of the failure of reductionism. I have now given three clear-cut exmaples of a failure of reductionism. (1) Infinite Sets (2) The Laws of Physics and (3) Quantum Wave Functions It is established that all of these concepts are indispensible to our explanations of reality and they are logically well defined and supported. But none of these concepts can be reduced to any finite set of empirical facts. The only way to evade the conclusion that reductionism is false is (as shown by Stathis's argument strategy) to deny that any of these concepts has objective reality. For example to evade a failure of reductionism as regards 'inifinite sets' one has to argue that infinite sets are not objectively real, or not physically real. You might get away with that argument for something as esoteric as 'Inifnite Sets' (after all there is some legitimate doubt that these things are real), but once you reach a concept which is clearly fundamental and neccessery for physical reality to exist at all (ie Quantum Wave Functions), your argument has lapsed to pure solipsism. Which is more likely: The laws of physics and QM wave functions are all human fictions, or reductionism is false? It has to be one or the other. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?
On May 7, 4:06 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 07/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We have here a clear example of an indispensible *physical* concept > > which *cannot* be broken down or reduced to any finite lower level > > descriptions. This proves that reductive materialism is false. > > I'm not sure that it is necessary to consider the laws of physics a separate > ontological category. A zoologist might study the behaviour of chimpanzees, > take notes, and summarise these notes in a paper for others to read and test > by seeing if chimpanzees do indeed behave as claimed. The "rules of > chimpanzee behaviour" is not separate to how chimpanzees actually behave nor > does it have any causal effects of its own. Similarly, a physicist might > study the behaviour of electrons and write a paper for others to read and > test by seeing if electrons do behave in the way claimed, but these "laws of > physics" regarding electrons are not separate to electron behaviour and have > no causal role in electron behaviour. Electrons and chimpanzees behave in > the way they are inclined to behave, and if we can discern patterns by > observing them, that's just our good fortune. > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou Say what!! this is not a valid analogy since the laws of physics are absolutely the fundamental level of reality, where as dsecriptions of chimpanzee behaviour are not. 'The Laws of Physics' don't refer to human notions (they certainly are not regarded that way by scientists - the whole notion of an objective reality would have be thrown out the window if we thought that there were no objective laws of physics since as mentioned, physics is the base level of reality), but are precise mathematical rules which have to be (postulated as) *universal* in scope for the scientific method to work at all. If an election were merely 'inclined' to behave in a certain way (which by the way is the pre-scientific world-view) , then what in fact could be the cause of its behaviour? An election is not a teleological (and non-fundamental) agent like a chimpanzee, it is a fixed fundamental building block of reality! There could be no explanatory theory of election behaviour without postulating some external (and objective) laws of physics capable of 'acting upon' the election. The whole scientific method is based on the notion *external* laws of physics combined with empirical data. So in practice the term *laws of physics* is definitely being used as if it as external objective 'thing' or ontological category. The whole point is that its use this way in practice (indispensible for the scientific method to work) means that it can't in fact be broken down into merely the sum of our empricial observations. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 07:50:21PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 05/05/07, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Reductionism eliminates emergence. Reductionism is the philosophy that > > all relevant properties of something can be explained in terms of the > > properties of its components. > > > > A weaker property is supervenience. Something A supervenes on the > > physics of its component parts U if two different states of A must > > have correspondingly different states of U. > > > > This may seem like the same thing, and many people confuse the two, > > however the example of irreversible systems supervening on molecules > > with reversible dynamics clearly illustrates the difference. > > > Maybe I'm arguing over a point of language, but it still seems to me that if > A supervenes on U, then it is entirely explained by U. If A surprises > despite full knowledge of U, then that just means your knowledge of U was > incomplete: that is, you have to add to your list of properties of the > components of U that lots of them interacting in a particular way result in > thermodynamic irreversibility, or intelligence, or whatever. It's just that > sometimes the result of the interaction is obvious, and other times not. > You still seem to be missing the point. You can have Laplace's daemon's knowledge of all the particles in the universe, yet still have no idea of what it is like to be in love. OK, I'm being extreme here, but for a reason. In fact Laplace's daemon's knowledge does not tell you about a lot of things eg the wetness of water, as these latter things are simply not in "the terms of reference" of knowing about molecules. So I completely disagree. Supervenience of a system on a lower level does not entail that the lower level explains everything about the system. And in terms of the surprise thing - you haven't played much with computer programming, have you? > Incidently, you quote me as saying "reductionism has gone too > > far". Whilst this is the sort comment I might make (depending on > > context), I don't appear to make it anywhere in my book. > > > My apologies, you are right... weird when you have a *really clear* memory > of something and it turns out to be wrong. > That's alright - I've done the same thing myself. I wasn't taking offence, I was just trying to find the context to see what I actually did say. > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > > -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?
On 05/05/07, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Reductionism eliminates emergence. Reductionism is the philosophy that > all relevant properties of something can be explained in terms of the > properties of its components. > > A weaker property is supervenience. Something A supervenes on the > physics of its component parts U if two different states of A must > have correspondingly different states of U. > > This may seem like the same thing, and many people confuse the two, > however the example of irreversible systems supervening on molecules > with reversible dynamics clearly illustrates the difference. Maybe I'm arguing over a point of language, but it still seems to me that if A supervenes on U, then it is entirely explained by U. If A surprises despite full knowledge of U, then that just means your knowledge of U was incomplete: that is, you have to add to your list of properties of the components of U that lots of them interacting in a particular way result in thermodynamic irreversibility, or intelligence, or whatever. It's just that sometimes the result of the interaction is obvious, and other times not. Incidently, you quote me as saying "reductionism has gone too > far". Whilst this is the sort comment I might make (depending on > context), I don't appear to make it anywhere in my book. My apologies, you are right... weird when you have a *really clear* memory of something and it turns out to be wrong. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
