Reductionism vs. emergence

[Cypress]

Reductionism vs. emergence: Are you “nothing but” your atoms?

-- Reductionism offers a narrow view of the universe that fails to explain reality --

Reductionism is the view that everything true about the world can be explained by atoms and their interactions. Emergence claims that reductionism is wrong, and the world can evolve new stuff and new laws that are not predictable from "nothing but" atoms. Which perspective on science is correct has huge implications, not only for ourselves but for everything from philosophy to economics to politics.

https://bigthink.com/13-8/reduction...ism is the view that,from "nothing but" atoms.

 

[BidenPresident]

Reductionism vs. emergence: Are you “nothing but” your atoms?

-- Reductionism offers a narrow view of the universe that fails to explain reality --

Reductionism is the view that everything true about the world can be explained by atoms and their interactions. Emergence claims that reductionism is wrong, and the world can evolve new stuff and new laws that are not predictable from "nothing but" atoms. Which perspective on science is correct has huge implications, not only for ourselves but for everything from philosophy to economics to politics.

https://bigthink.com/13-8/reduction...ism is the view that,from "nothing but" atoms.

I like the idea of complex systems. We can understand nature as a system of self organizing systems.

 

[Cypress]

I like the idea of complex systems. We can understand nature as a system of self organizing systems.

It bugs me that we barely understand self organization and biologic emergence in anything but the most rudimentary and mechanistic way.

Whenever I hear biologists and biochemists speculate about abiogenesis, consciousness, emergence, it is always in a very speculative way and invokes a lot of arm waving.

The problem seems to come down to that biology is infinitely more complex than inorganic chemistry or physics, and we are light years from fully understanding the nature and origins of biological emergence.

Wrapping up: that makes the science of biology a lot of fun, and more challenging in a way than physics.

 

[Cypress]

Two radical materialists: Marx and Nietzsche

Marx (as both an atheist and a materialist) denied the real existence of anything beyond the physical. For Marx, the base (or structure) of society is the economic means and modes of production upon which rests the social, political, and intellectual superstructure.

Thought flows upward from the base. Ideology, art, even
consciousness itself are determined by economic forces. Art and consciousness have no separate existence, no inherent meaning that can transcend their economic milieu.

In Marx’s system, art loses its transcendent status; if it is
unable to break free from socio-political forces, then it cannot hope to express Truth. It is a product like anything else.


Nietzsche broke down the old faith in the accessibility and even the possibility of meaning. Nietzsche argues that Truth is, finally, an illusion that man constructed and then forgot that he had constructed it.

For Nietzsche, there is no truth apart from what man creates.

Finally, even God is a man-made truth; therefore, not only is God dead, but so are all supernatural, transcendent ideas and realities, whether those ideas and realities are theological, philosophical, or aesthetic.




Source credit Louis Markos, PhD

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Reductionism vs. emergence: Are you “nothing but” your atoms?

-- Reductionism offers a narrow view of the universe that fails to explain reality --

Reductionism is the view that everything true about the world can be explained by atoms and their interactions. Emergence claims that reductionism is wrong, and the world can evolve new stuff and new laws that are not predictable from "nothing but" atoms. Which perspective on science is correct has huge implications, not only for ourselves but for everything from philosophy to economics to politics.

https://bigthink.com/13-8/reduction...ism is the view that,from "nothing but" atoms.

Everything true about the universe is absolutely about atoms.
Everything else is fanciful, [FONT=&quot]nondemonstrable theory.

[/FONT]Mozart is as random as a malignant tumor. If it's physical possible, it happens. That's how eternal infinity works.
And we can see it.

 

[Cypress]

Everything true about the universe is absolutely about atoms.
Everything else is fanciful, [FONT="]nondemonstrable theory.

[/FONT]Mozart is as random as a malignant tumor. If it's physical possible, it happens. That's how eternal infinity works.
And we can see it.

It's a decent hypothesis, but the universe is not of infinite age, and while the universe could theoretically last forever, the inexorable expansion of the universe means at some point the universe will be dark and dead, and atomic motion will cease as the temperature approaches absolute zero. So as a tangible reality, I don't think it's safe to say an active universe will be around for an infinite amount of time.


Then there is this, about the theory an large amount of monkeys at keyboards could eventually type out Shakespeare's Hamlet:

could monkeys type Hamlet?

Even if every proton in the observable universe were a monkey with a typewriter, typing from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when protons might no longer exist), they would still need a far greater amount of time – more than three hundred and sixty thousand orders of magnitude longer – to have even a 1 in 10500 chance of success. To put it another way, for a one in a trillion chance of success, there would need to be 10[SUP]360,641[/SUP] observable universes made of protonic monkeys. (Wikipedia)

 

[NiftyNiblick]

If infinity is real, those numbers for the monkeys aren't big.
No number is big in infinity.

It is hard to imagine beginnings, however.
Whatever we want to call a beginning, what was before that?
Was there ever a beginning if we can't imagine how there could be one?
And does it practically matter in our very short lives?

 

[Cypress]

If infinity is real, those numbers for the monkeys aren't big.
No number is big in infinity.

It is hard to imagine beginnings, however.
Whatever we want to call a beginning, what was before that?
Was there ever a beginning if we can't imagine how there could be one?
And does it practically matter in our very short lives?

I just don't think it's a good assumption that there is an infinite amount of time for every possibility to unfold. The universe has a definite beginning and a definite end, if one considers the cessation of atomic motion an end.

As for what happened before the Big Bang, I am not sure there is such a thing as "time" before the Big Bang.Time depends on entropy.

Even if there are parallel universes, there's no guarantee they are anything like ours, or have the same laws of nature and physics.


At the end of the day, is any of this important?
If the question is whether there is any truth to art, music, literature, or if they are just products like cell phones and screwdrivers, that seems like an important question to me.

 

[Melchizedek = Michael]

I just don't think it's a good assumption that there is an infinite amount of time for every possibility to unfold. The universe has a definite beginning and a definite end, if one considers the cessation of atomic motion an end.

As for what happened before the Big Bang, I am not sure there is such a thing as "time" before the Big Bang.Time depends on entropy.

Even if there are parallel universes, there's no guarantee they are anything like ours, or have the same laws of nature and physics.


At the end of the day, is any of this important?
If the question is whether there is any truth to art, music, literature, or if they are just products like cell phones and screwdrivers, that seems like an important question to me.

What you need is to break on thru to the other side!
And connect the dots from Spirit world history and how it's actions caused the reaction the Big Bang.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Reductionism vs. emergence: Are you “nothing but” your atoms?

-- Reductionism offers a narrow view of the universe that fails to explain reality --

Reductionism is the view that everything true about the world can be explained by atoms and their interactions. Emergence claims that reductionism is wrong, and the world can evolve new stuff and new laws that are not predictable from "nothing but" atoms. Which perspective on science is correct has huge implications, not only for ourselves but for everything from philosophy to economics to politics.

https://bigthink.com/13-8/reduction...ism is the view that,from "nothing but" atoms.

the level of the individual is still the correct level of analysis for the human being tho.