tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post9189327722447037607..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Reductionism does not succeed even for simple physical phenomenagcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-82002980741527346142014-03-09T23:05:48.206-04:002014-03-09T23:05:48.206-04:00"Given that everything to the right of the fi..."Given that everything to the right of the first arrow is intrinsically 'not reality,' (in that A != not A, or whatever) and further that it encompasses science (I could have substituted 'science' for abstraction) it should be immediately clear that reductionism is wrong..."<br /><br />Well put, Scott.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-72066065790647895722014-03-09T19:55:24.127-04:002014-03-09T19:55:24.127-04:00It took me several days to figure out what that pa...It took me several days to figure out what that part about dimethyl ether and ethanol meant.<br /><br />Once I did, I realized he makes a good point, but it seems a very strange way to say it (i.e., that the Schrodinger equation cannot tell you what compound will form from the various particles which go into the equation because there are multiple metastable configurations which are legitimate 'solutions' to the equation.) Seems like there would be a more straightforward way to say that -- like maybe what I just said. 'Sharing a Hamiltonian' seems very obtuse to me.<br /><br />Seems like a really interesting topic, but I couldn't bring myself to read that whole thing. I feel like someone is drilling into my head very slowly with a corkscrew when I read something like that. Chemistry is supposed to be fun and exciting, not painful. Personally, I will always fall back on the notion that abstraction = simplification, which seems so incredibly simple and irrefutable to me. Once you see that, all this other stuff immediately seems so obviously silly.<br /><br />Reality => abstraction => mathematical expression<br /><br />Given that everything to the right of the first arrow is intrinsically 'not reality,' (in that A != not A, or whatever) and further that it encompasses science (I could have substituted 'science' for abstraction) it should be immediately clear that reductionism is wrong -- science can never quite describe reality just because it isn't reality, if for no other reason. Science is a special sort of make-believe, with special rules. Like mythology, or a good novel, or a painting, maybe -- a make-believe for the purpose of expressing truth.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12915297057336831151noreply@blogger.com