Dan~ wrote:All spacial dimensions are divisible.
Reality can be reduced.
Flannel Jesus wrote:The emergent properties of water, a reductionist would say, are indeed implicit (at least statistically implicit) in the fundamental rules that govern the fundamental constituents of that body of water.
anthropo-eccentricism wrote:I'm not sure I follow here. Water has capacities that are contained neither in hydrogen nor oxygen. Of course. But you want to say that "the fundamental rules that govern the fundamental constituents [that is, hydrogen and oxygen] of" a particular instance of water will have always-already implied the power to wet, for example. Have I mischaracterized you? Do you mean that, after understanding the way a body of water works, its capacities and powers, we can go back to its constituting particles and find those "emergent" capacities implicitly contained therein? Like a retrospective reductionism? Interesting. I'm not sure I see the force of this kind of argument. It seems like we'd still need to take a detour through the emergent entity to understand the interaction of its parts. And its parts can interact differently under different circumstances: water freezes at a certain temperature, a capacity that differs from the properties of the particles that constitute it.
Flannel Jesus wrote:If I had a working model of the elements "hydrogen" and "oxygen" and how they should behave in the world, and how they should interact with other particles, and that working model couldn't predict the properties of h2o, then surely the model is incorrect. Surely a correct model of how the constituent parts function would result in correct predictions about the whole functioning, no? Surely if I had a model of hydrogen and oxygen, and that model predicted that h2o would be a sand-like substance, something in my model is incorrect.
anthropo-eccentricism wrote:Dan: while I do appreciate your contribution, I expect more than a bare assertion to the contrary of my post.
Dan~ wrote:I'd say reductionism isn't perfect, it's just part of our psychological nature. It's not an expression of reality or what is, not purely, it's just a way of shifting our perspective. A reflex of knowledge.
Flannel Jesus wrote:The way you're talking about oxygen, as if it has some inherent dormant quality of "wetness," is exactly the reason that you're not getting reductionism -- there is no "wetness" parameter that exists in the universe. "wetness" is itself an incredibly abstract thing. oxygen doesn't have dormant wetness. "wetness" is a sensation that we feel -- it is a macroscopic sensation, an abstraction. you don't expect to find macroscopic abstractions explicitly coded in to microscopic fundamentals -- this is what the concept of emergence is all about. you don't have to find dormant wetness in oxygen for oxygen to be capable of combining with other elements to help create the macroscopic, abstract sensation of wetness.
Flannel Jesus wrote:Surely if I had a model of hydrogen and oxygen, and that model predicted that h2o would be a sand-like substance, something in my model is incorrect.
anthropo-eccentricism wrote: I lost faith with the likes of ZenKitty
Flannel Jesus wrote:if you don't think that new actual ad-hoc rules are required to make the water wet, but that it will be wet by itself just by following the more fundamental laws, you're a reductionist.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users