= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jimrandomh comments on Looking for reductionism help - 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 (24)
This seems to be an extremely naive answer, because everything we once thought was a microscale component turned out to really be a macrosystem made up of smaller things, all the way down to configurations of quantum amplitudes. This answer is exactly the thing I'm trying to address. If it wasn't clear in my post, I totally understand what "reductionism is" -- I'm more interested in how to explain our state of the art understanding of giving a reductionist account of actual physics, which seems to terminate at questions about the ontological status of quantum amplitude.
The next step below quantum amplitude, if there is one, is Tegmarkian multiverses, which are a reduction fixpoint (they reduce to themselves). (There might be one intermediate in between - I have a strong suspicion that quantum amplitudes are a continuous approximation of something discrete). However, there is pretty good reason to believe that we cannot gather evidence about them, even in principle.
I understand the concept of Tegmarkian multiverses, but could you explain how they "reduce to themselves"?