http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Seminal-Papers-in-Complexity-tp524047p524073.html
Einstein's idea of the physical world. As I recall, the argument was
scientific reality. So as scientists, reality does not exist beyond
what is knowable. I think it was that slim logical thread that kept the
observations from being tossed out as ridiculous.
that's what you like... I prefer, and find more productive, thinking
be flawed. That's the 'bad' part of it I suppose. It also leaves me
being surprised.
680 Ft. Washington Ave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Glen E. P. Ropella
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 11:41 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: [FRIAM] reductionism
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I submit the following for criticism:
>
> It's always seemed to me that reductionism and the use of
> "nonlinearity" as a pretentious and hermetic placeholder for
> synergy has its roots in characterizing the expectations of
> the observer.
>
> Anti-reductionists are just as silly as reductionists when
> they assert that they have or manipulate some deep
> understanding of what's out there (onto-). We can't _reduce_
> the actual world anymore than the actual world is "summed" or
> composed of actual components. It's _all_ in your head.
> None of this is real or concrete.
>
> Interactions with the world happen in the medium of actions.
> Hence, the extent to which any mechanism or phenomenon is
> reducible is identical to the extent to which the mechanism
> or phenomenon can be discretely acted upon. Likewise, the
> extent to which any mechanism or phenomenon is emergent is
> identical to the extent to which it can be discretely acted
> upon (or to which it discretely acts).
>
> And that begs the question of discretion. I don't think one
> can construct a bullet-proof argument that reality is either
> purely continuous or purely discrete. One is limited to
> approximations and estimating within some tolerance. So, it
> all boils down to whether you believe reality is continuous
> or discrete. Those who believe it is continuous tend to be
> anti-reductionists and submit that every action affects (to
> whatever tiny degree) all mechanisms and phenomena in the
> universe. Those who believe it is discrete tend to be
> reductionist and submit that the effect of (at least some)
> actions are purely local and don't affect distant mechanisms
> or phenomena.
>
> The trick is that those who advocate for emergence face
> consistency problems. On the one hand, they want to suggest
> that a) causes are indiscrete/inseparable/nonanalytic (or at
> least occult) and b) the _thing_ that emerges is, somehow,
> discrete/separable/identifiable from its environment. (a) =><= (b).
>
> Reductionists don't have this problem. They have a different
> one: namely that they cannot demonstrate that reality is
> completely discrete. And that means that they're forever
> wandering around cutting things up in different ways and
> hoping that this cut or that cut will stick and prove true.
>
> Michael Agar wrote:
> > So I just wrote that story and all of a sudden wondered,
> what the hell
> > is reductionism anyway? Cheated by looking it up in
> Wikipedia and of
> > course there's many different kinds. The old philosophy
> joke is, when
> > faced with a contradiction, make a distinction. The first
> line of the
> > major Wikipedia entry is, "In philosophy, reductionism is a theory
> > that asserts that the nature of complex things is reduced to the
> > nature of sums of simpler or more fundamental things."
> >
> > Sums. So is nonlinearity the key to the kingdom? Are we
> really looking
> > for germinal papers in nonlinearity?
>
> Phil Henshaw wrote:
> > Assigning numbers to things is what I always thought of as being the
> > 'reduction' part of reductionism.
>
> Russell Standish wrote:
> > No, its the analytical part in expressions like analytical
> geometry.
> > One can be analytical without being reductionist, but it
> helps to have
> > a computer :) [...] "Sum of the parts" is more metaphoric than
> > literal. IMHO, the key to the kingdom is emergence, and
> nonlinearity
> > is only necessary to distinguish between simple or "resultant"
> > emergence, and the more general kind.
>
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com> When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the
> first things to be bought and sold are legislators. -- P.J. O'Rourke
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org>
> iD8DBQFGdqeVZeB+vOTnLkoRAu6GAKCKm0yRFFL0t9OcbTfrUYFtD3twagCfcs87
> rtDWLbZKA/Ny8FI077Kkhps=
> =Cv38
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org>
>