You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Vamair0 comments on Anti-reductionism as complementary, rather than contradictory - Less Wrong Discussion

-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.