lukstafi comments on Natural Laws Are Descriptions, not Rules - Less Wrong

32 Post author: pragmatist 08 August 2012 04:27AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (234)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: pragmatist 10 August 2012 04:02:42AM 0 points [-]

The problem with descriptivism in modern physics is that you say physical theory describes something independent, but you end up postulating the things that it describes as part of the description language, you do not provide any additional denotation for them. I.e. you claim that it describes the real stuff, but in fact it only describes the constants of its language. So the descriptive view forces anti-realism. But it seems your mereological reductionism is a form of realism.

I'm having trouble following your argument here. Could you clarify how descriptivism commits me to anti-realism?

Comment author: lukstafi 10 August 2012 02:36:06PM *  0 points [-]

I hope everyone understands that anti-realism is not a statement that "reality is not real", i.e. it is not nihilism, but it is a statement that the predication of existence is relative to the theory which gives it (this predication) validity, so to say. ETA: I think I'll withdraw my comments here regarding "anti-realism" because it seems the term is not defined this way... See Anti-realism and metaphysical nihilism.