Re: models - branch fromf GM discussion

[John M <***>]

JohnK,
Let me try to make sense (will I succeed?) I will refer to your post
below, without quoting and I do not interspace my remarks.
^^^^^^^^
The "2nd part (RR....):
RR (IMO) made a differentiation between systems (machines, organizations)
and "natural systems" ie. without boiundary cut (my understanding). Here is
the "line" I drew for reductionism: below that ((in)computability,
(im)predicativity) are the classical sciences.
---(I don't know what did "di" stand instead of in my post.)---

Did you find impredicative and noncomputable sciences (in the conventional
(old) sense)?

I am not principally AGAINST reductionism (mine that is) because that's the
way we can think.
RR's biology and equational explanations are in my sense reductionistic, but
I cannot propose a better way to 'speak'. I define the (my) 'reductionist
objection' at the level of formulating limited models for observation and
explanation by themselves (not as 'natural systems'). ie: When we bow to the
boundaries. This is why I call causality a reductionistic idea - it 'picks'
ONE reason to cause an event while the entire universe is involved - two
ways: influence and response. (I/O)
(Even if the "1" reason is more than one, it is a limited, restricted, cut
cause-concept).
First the 'unlimited' connectivity looked like making grits of the world,
this is why I tried to differentiate between connections beyond the quanti
reductionism: by using qualitative effects in addition to the physical
connections (http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes/influence.html) - a first
draft. Corrections happily accepted (unless refuted ha ha).
I admit, it only differentiates between boundaries: adding quality to the
quantity, but saves the day for today. There are still boundaries to
observe. Qualia. Would you call it just "another predicative point?" In that
case I give up and transfer a solution to the grandkids of my grandkids.
We need a new language, glossary, way of thinking, another mind. This one
mind is reductive.

Cheers

JohnM

PS. You wrote to HP (among many others):
>>... RR's question: "What is life?" has to be answered in terms
>>that explain experience as well as describe it.<<
I thought RR denied the validity (correctness) of this question?
Then again: what experience? religious? personal? biological? in any case
within reductionistic boundary-cut views. - J





----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: models - branch fromf GM discussion


> John M.
>
> Yes, I agree that dictionary definitions can be out of date, but I
> thought it a good baseline for discussion. Thanks for "reading." Now my
> turn to read your definition.
>
> >JM: And in principle I arrived at my definition for "reductionism" as
reducing
> >the totality to a segment we observe (within set - selected boundaries)
and
> >disregard further connectivities in this endeavour.
> >RR had an expression if you don't di that: a natural system.
> >So I drew the line at the "impredicative" and "non computable"
> >below (reduced to below) I found the sciences.
> >
>
> JK: The first part is clear, but I'm having trouble getting your meaning
> in the second part. Do you mean reducing the totality that is complex in
> the sense of impredicative and non-computable, to "a segment we observe"
> that is predicative and constitutes the sciences? If I read right, then
> I think it is essentially what Blackburn was saying is the physical
> tradition because of the identification of reduction with observability
> and predicativity. However I think that a modern definition would need
> to be looser, and would agree more with his general case of "explaining
> one thing in terms of something else." In other words, reducing the
> totality to any concept whatsoever, even an impredicative one, would be
> a form of modern reduction. In that case reduction to something
> observable or predicative, like the chemistry-physics reduction, is just
> one choice. That's why I tried to distinguish between reduction"ism" as
> the historical tradition documented in philosophy books of reducing to
> chemistry & physics, in contrast to a more modern version that would
> apply to any theory or thinking at all, obviously including Rosen's ideas.
>