ImNotAsSmartAsIThinK comments on Anti-reductionism as complementary, rather than contradictory - Less Wrong

-2 Post author: ImNotAsSmartAsIThinK 27 May 2016 11:17PM

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

Comments (10)

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

Comment author: Vamair0 29 May 2016 03:33:03PM 0 points [-]

A lossless explanation is reductionist

Isn't that what people mean when they say reductionism is right?

Comment author: ImNotAsSmartAsIThinK 29 May 2016 07:04:07PM *  0 points [-]

There are two things you could mean when you say 'reductionism is right'. That reality is reductionist in the "big thing = small thing + small thing" sense, or that reductionist explanations are better by fiat.

Reality is probably reductionist. I won't assign perfect certainty, but reductionist reality is simpler than magical reality.

As it currently stands, we don't have a complete theory of reality, so the only criteria we can judge theories is that they 1) are accurate, 2) are simple.

I am not arguing about the rightness or wrongness of reductionism. Reductionism and contra-reductionism are containers, and they contain certain classes of explanations. Contra-reductionism conatins historical explanations, explaining the state of things by the interactions with outside forces, and reductionism contains predictive explanations, explaining the future behavior in terms of internal forces.