= 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)
On 7.: even if you were to successfully show that the real world reduces to some lower, possibly more/less complicated, level (as particle physics did, and nuclear physics did, and, well, physics really likes doing...) that next level is still "the real world" just understood in slightly more detail.
Which you can then try and reduce further. (I really hope it's infinitely complicated :p)
In addition; 1-5 are all aspects of seven. So I'm really not sure what the point you're trying to make.
I agree that making particles out of smaller particles wouldn't make me un-confused about the sense in which there is something rather than nothing.
That doesn't mean there isn't some set of concepts and reductions that would make me unconfused. Eliezer has a good description of how such processes can go at Righting a wrong question.
What do you mean by "the sense in which there is something rather than nothing."?
That seems to imply that there is a sense in which there isn't anything. But there not being anything is inconsistent with your existence, and by "cogito ergo sum"esque arguments, you can be certain of your own existence.