BothAndBlog Forum

The case for scientific reductionism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/780777


Pross claims that the rejection of reductionism is a mistake. That's why I'm wrasseling. I think he's wrong, but I'm reevaluating my position. — T Clark

There's no need to "reject" Reductionism as the method for scientific analysis (dissection) of Nature into its elements. There's still some de-construction work to do. But as your quote implied, you can't construct a real material universe from squishy superposed (not yet real) Quantum non-particles. Nevertheless, according to some physicists, the world now appears to be organized from fundamental "bits" of information (Wheeler's "it from bit").

Since the 20th century, belief in tiny (invisible) Particles of stuff (atoms), as the elementary element of Physics, has been gradually & grudgingly superseded by nonlocal continuum Fields of information patterns, consisting of an imaginary grid of mathematical points with no extension in space. At least that is true for theoretical (mathematical) physicists. Meanwhile, some empirical scientists, and Materialist philosophers continue to view the world in terms of ancient Greek atoms and 17th century Newtonian matter .

In the 21st century, the Santa Fe Institute, of which Anderson was a founding member, focuses on "Complex Systems" in which inter-relationships (Information) are more important than the nodes of the grid. YouTube physicist Sabine Hossenfelder seems to think that reductionist physics has lost its way. Maybe a "bit" of Holistic Physics can put it back on track. In any case, philosophers don't construct their models from particles of matter.

Physicists Debate Whether the World Is Made of Particles or Fields :
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... hing-else/

Santa Fe Institute :
But the way in which complex phenomena are hidden, beyond masking by space and time, is through nonlinearity, randomness, collective dynamics, hierarchy, and emergence — a deck of attributes that have proved ill-suited to our intuitive and augmented abilities to grasp and to comprehend.
https://www.santafe.edu/what-is-complex-systems-science

What is it from bit theory? :
It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions
https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/09/ ... t-wheeler/

What's Going Wrong in Particle Physics? :
Sabine Hossenfelder (This is why I lost faith in science.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu4mH3Hmw2o&t=254s

Particles of stuff (atoms), as the elementary element of Physics, has been gradually & grudgingly superseded by nonlocal continuum Fields of information patterns, consisting of an imaginary grid of mathematical points with no extension in space. — Gnomon

This is not true. — T Clark

Wow! Total rejection. Can you be more specific about which part of that assertion seems to be untrue to you : "nonlocal" or "continuum" or "fields" or "information patterns" or "imaginary" or "points", or all of the above? Information theory assigns value to the pattern of relationships (geometry) even if the dimensionless-point-in-space has no physical substance. Such an abstract notion is difficult to grasp, but it is essential to Quantum & Information theories.

Real talk: Everything is made of fields :
“To understand what is going on, you actually need to give up a little bit on the notion of particles,” physicist Sean Carroll said in the June lecture.
Instead, think in terms of fields.
Carroll’s stunner, at least to many non-scientists, is this: Every particle is actually a field. The universe is full of fields, and what we think of as particles are just excitations of those fields, like waves in an ocean. An electron, for example, is just an excitation of an electron field.
This may seem counterintuitive, but seeing the world in terms of fields actually helps make sense of some otherwise confusing facts of particle physics.
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/articl ... -of-fields
Note -- Can you imagine a mathematical point in empty space getting excited? It's a philosophical metaphor attempting to make an invisible abstraction imaginable. Like much of Quantum Physics, such notions are counter-intuitive and seemingly paradoxical.

FIELDS AND PARTICLES :
Broadly speaking, a field is a collection of properties ascribed to regions of space (one might also speak of the region itself as being "the field"); if the properties are quantifiable then the field is a mathematical function of spatial coordinates,
https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities ... -particles

"In vector calculus, a field is an assignment of a value (vector value for a vector field, scalar value for a scalar field) to every point in space".
https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-Field-mathematics

"What is a Point in Math? :
In classical Euclidean geometry, a point is a primitive notion that models an exact location in space, and has no length, width, or thickness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)

Patterns%20stars.PNG

The second meaning of reductionism is the assertion that all sciences should reduce to physics (just as Apollo did). The argument for this hinges mainly on the success of physics up to this point. At least methodologically, scientists should continue to stick to what's been working for thousands of years. We should approach all topics available for scientific inquiry as if the goal is further reduction to physics. — frank

Those "shoulds" imply a moral obligation to the "truth" of Physics, as opposed to the "falsehoods" of Religion. The assertion of final authority for Empirical Physics was indeed the underlying ideology of Classical Physics since the 17th century. But the 20th century threw a monkey wrench of doubt (Quantum Uncertainty) into the works of that non-religious belief system .

The ancient & classical faith in an unbroken chain of causal Destiny was based on the unfounded assumption of Determinism -- by divine or physical Laws -- and "worked" for three centuries of empirical dominance. But confidence in that premise was shaken by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. In response to quantum indeterminism, AlanTuring began to look into the plausibility of Free Will within the "boundary conditions" (established by the statistical Schrodinger equation) of quantum physics. Quantum scale "laws" are fuzzy, so future states are statistical, instead of deterministic.

The Aaronson article, mentioned before, reviews Turing's reasoning in some detail (85 pages). So, what do you think? In view of Quantum Holism & Uncertainty, should we continue to bow before the Physics idols of Atomism & Destiny?


Physics and Determinism and Reductionism :
In honor of Alan Turing’s hundredth birthday, I unwisely set out some thoughts about one of
Turing’s obsessions throughout his life, the question of physics and free will. I focus relatively
narrowly on a notion that I call “Knightian freedom”: a certain kind of in-principle physical unpredictability that goes beyond probabilistic unpredictability. Other, more metaphysical aspects
of free will I regard as possibly outside the scope of science.
I examine a viewpoint, suggested independently by Carl Hoefer, Cristi Stoica, and even
Turing himself, that tries to find scope for “freedom” in the universe’s boundary conditions
rather than in the dynamical laws.
The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine ___Scott Aaronson
https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf


Quote : "Science is a differential equation. Religion is a boundary condition.” __Alan Turing
Differential = relationships between unknowns.
Boundary conditions = limitations on possibilities