= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AnnaSalamon comments on If reductionism is the hammer, what nails are out there? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (46)
We do now regard 1-5 as all being made out of the same stuff that 7 is made out of. But many folks persistently felt that there had to be separate kinds of essences involved in at least some of 1-5. I felt that way for some of them. The point is that I/they were mistaken; and the next point is to ask if there are any other questions about which we may be similarly mistaken or confused.
Does that make any more sense?
Even before 1-5 were succesfully reduced they were still seen as part of 7.
They were just seen as parts of 7 with different properties to the rest.
It doesn't really clarify my main point of confusion, which is what you're attempting to gain by listing 7 (ie. pretty much everything) as a single thing to be reduced