Qualia in reductionist view

  • Thread starter Ferris_bg
  • Start date
  • #51
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,191
253
I was thinking of definition (b). I see you use definition (a). I wonder then how this approach handles problems like black holes. Black holes cannot theoretically be studied other than an entity with few properties. Unless, of course, we find something faster than light, that can carry information. At least I think there is no other option.
b) seems pretty indefensible to me. Physicalism is about scientific reductionism, not philosophical reductionism. The only difference is that "interactions" are included in a) because physics is all about interactions. We don't talk about the force between and electron and itself. Force is something that couples two different objects.

I don't know much about relativity or cosmology; my modern studies consisted of quantum and nonlinear. It might be a good question for the cosmology forum above that we could later link to for our discussion, but I would guess much of relativity reduces to spacetime.
 
  • #52
88
0
Well, let's say we are unable to directly observe some of the hidden parts. Thus we will know about them only indirectly, by observing the emergent properties they create. If this happens to be true, does it mean the reductionism is not valid view?
You can't apply reduction to strong emergent properties. But you can still have identity. This is the idea behind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_monism" [Broken].
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: Qualia in reductionist view

  • Poll
  • Last Post
15
Replies
352
Views
26K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
63
Views
13K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
Top