Comment on Open Thread, November 16–30, 2012

Tue, 20 Nov 2012 03:30:36 GMT

I don't have any references, but I'll share my view:

The way the particles are actually behaving is part of the territory, the mathematical symbols we use to describe such behavior are part of the map.

And I don't see how this calls the whole idea of reductionism into question. In fact, if the behavior of such particles can be described using a simple mathematical formalism, in my opinion, that is reductionism at its finest. We have reduced the apparently complicated motion of, for example, a dog, into the movement of particles according to simple formulas. Simple mathematically describable behavior patterns, though non-physical (if you insist on categorizing them that way), are not magic.

I feel as if I may be missing the point, because I didn't become confused after reading your questions. Please clarify, if I did miss the point.

Discuss