Intelligent Design

[BillHoyt]

Sure! Look at chaos theory, or thermodynamics. Both are ways to model and predict the behaviour of large numbers of objects, and work great that way. If you try to use either for simple cases (one or two atoms, say) they don't work. If you try to use physics on each of 10^22 atoms, it doesn't work either.

Chaos theory applies to any system of three or more differential equations; it isn't limited to large numbers of anything. I'm not sure why you think chaos theory fails at any point; that isn't the case at all. It simply recognizes classes of attractors so powerful that long-term behavior predictions become difficult or impossible without impossibly accurate measurements of the initial system state.

Different domains of physics are modeled in different ways, and a very good model in one domain won't work in another.

The domains are exactly what we're discussing. The higher domains derive from the underlying domains.

 

[drkitten]

5. The components and processes of this universe can be isolated and profitably analyzed in isolation."

And Bill, the scientismist, apparently doesn't realize that the profitability of one method of analysis doesn't imply the unprofitability of others.

MESchlum's analogies are quite good. It is profitable to isolate the components and processes in a puddle of water and thereby to study the chemical processes of the component molecules. It's also useful to leave the puddle, conceptually, as a whole and thereby to study its mechanical and biological processes.

"Catalysis," for example, by definition cannot be studied by analyzing the components of the reaction in isolation, since catalysis only exists when the substances are brought together. Since most of life is based on protein catalysis, I wonder how you think biologists operate.

 

[BillHoyt]

Catching up with the above, I'll add that isolating the observed objects is key.

Study a puddle in nature, and lots of things interfere.

Study a measured amount of water in the lab, and you can derive its mechanical properties.

Study a molecule of water, and you can derive its chemical properties (which does not tell you much about sewer pipes, but a lot about molecular biology).

There is no point in reducing a puddle of water to a single water molecule if you're interested in fluid flows. It's even counterproductive.

There is no point in studying the ocean if you want to know the energy levels of a water molecule. It's even counterproductive.

So yes, simplifying and isolating what you want to study is good. Using only quarks, leptons etc. to build the Eiffel tower is insane.

You're conflating the concepts of reductionism, emergence and pragmatism here.

 

[BillHoyt]

And Bill, the scientismist, apparently doesn't realize that the profitability of one method of analysis doesn't imply the unprofitability of others.

Discuss the issues, if you can.

 

[drkitten]

Could you name any phenomenon which physicists believe is not reducible?

Translation out of Ian-speak: "No, I can't actually find any evidence supporting what I claim is a `very common supposition,' so I will attempt to muddy the waters by asking a semi-related question in a vain effort to distract my questioner. I won't even try to give a responsive answer, because that would reveal not only the utter naivety of my philosophical conjectures, but also the complete paucity of my scientific understanding. Rather than risking learning something, I would rather retreat into my shell of ignorance."

 

[drkitten]

Discuss the issues, if you can.

Re-read my post. Please explain how an understanding of catalysis can arise from a purely reductionist analysis of each component of the reaction in isolation.

Alternatively, please explain how an understanding of biology can arise without an understanding of catalysis.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Bill, I would reword this axiom:

1. There is a real, external universe.

It sounds like an ontological statement, yet there is no reason to make any ontological statements.

Perhaps the source of our disagreement is the interpretation of reductionism. Just because everything is ultimately the result of "micro-physics," does not mean that the physical explanation captures all the emergent nuances. I would say that I think everything is a result of physics, but that the reductionist explanation for some things will leave out the higher-level properties of those things, even though those properaties emerged from physics.

Similarly, explaining a beautiful poem using phonetics and rules of grammar will not capture its full beauty.

~~ Paul

 

[BillHoyt]

Re-read my post. Please explain how an understanding of catalysis can arise from a purely reductionist analysis of each component of the reaction in isolation.

No True Scotsman maneuver. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Could you name any phenomenon which physicists believe is not reducible?

MESchlum

Sure! Look at chaos theory, or thermodynamics. Both are ways to model and predict the behaviour of
large numbers of objects, and work great that way. If you try to use either for simple cases (one or two atoms, say) they don't work. If you try to use physics on each of 10^22 atoms, it doesn't work either.

Which is kinda like saying we have to use psychological concepts to explain behaviour. But nevertheless it is still widely assumd that in principle our behaviour is explicable by virtue of micro-physics. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong. Have you got any references that chaos theory and thermodynamics exhibet emergent phenomena, which, in principle cannot be discerned from an analysis of parts?

II
Reductionism is a fundamental tenet of physics. Physicists constantly seek to show that apparent disparate phenomena have, at root, the same mathematical equation governing their behaviour.


MESchlum
Nope. I have yet to meet a physicist who will argue that magnetism and gravity work using the same equations.

Well, gravity is the 4th force. Electromagnetism and the strong and weak interactions in nuclear phenomena have all been reduced and shown to be mainifestations of the same basic equation. It is believed by physicists that gravity too will be shown to do so eventually.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Dr. Kitten said:
Re-read my post. Please explain how an understanding of catalysis can arise from a purely reductionist analysis of each component of the reaction in isolation.

Whoa! We really are taking reductionism a little too reductively. Who would claim that we could understand catalysis by only looking at the individual components? There also has to be a low-level description of the interaction of the components, or we have not, in fact, reduced the entire problem to its fundamental explanation.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Translation out of Ian-speak: "No, I can't actually find any evidence supporting what I claim is a `very common supposition,' so I will attempt to muddy the waters by asking a semi-related question in a vain effort to distract my questioner. I won't even try to give a responsive answer, because that would reveal not only the utter naivety of my philosophical conjectures, but also the complete paucity of my scientific understanding. Rather than risking learning something, I would rather retreat into my shell of ignorance."

This is ridiculous. Look, kitten, no doubt I could go exploring on the Net. But what I say is such common knowledge that it seems to me a complete waste of time.

Please please go study some philosophy of science . .oh yeah . .and history of science.

Alternatively give some examples of phenomena where it is generally recognised that they cannot in principle be reduced to micro-physics.

Hell, even BillHoyt agrees with me! This is the first time ever!

 

[MESchlum]

You're conflating the concepts of reductionism, emergence and pragmatism here.

Sure. I just enjoy my math and science, and hope to avoid getting caught in terminology wars. To me, reductionism seems to be used (in this discussion) as stating that macro properties and laws can be derived from micro ones, then rinse and repeat.

I like thermodynamics (I'm strange that way), and while I will happily admit that it does not exactly model the behaviour of gas molecules (due to approximations), it does a much better job of doing so (for practical purposes, and even research) than modeling each and every particle. And chaos problems would make the later computations collapse anyway, I suspect.

So, to my understanding of the problem as posed, thermodynamics is not reducible, as it:

a) does not work for small quantities
b) does not rely exclusively on micro properties (the entropy of a gas is not something you can share among the individual molecules, to the best of my understanding)
c) does a better job of describing things than what could be done using only the micro properties

That said, it's a model, it can be tested, it works. Things ID can't really say with a straight face.

 

[BillHoyt]

Sure. I just enjoy my math and science, and hope to avoid getting caught in terminology wars. To me, reductionism seems to be used (in this discussion) as stating that macro properties and laws can be derived from micro ones, then rinse and repeat.

Not quite. The statement is that macro properties derive (here, meaning emerge) from micro ones. Furthermore the macro properties cannot and do not violate underlying principles. How one derives (in either the mathematical or experimental sense) is a different issue.

I like thermodynamics (I'm strange that way), and while I will happily admit that it does not exactly model the behaviour of gas molecules (due to approximations), it does a much better job of doing so (for practical purposes, and even research) than modeling each and every particle. And chaos problems would make the later computations collapse anyway, I suspect.

Here, you've switched to pragmatism, a different matter from the hierarchy of science and mathematics. The latter is the issue being discussed.

So, to my understanding of the problem as posed, thermodynamics is not reducible, as it:

a) does not work for small quantities
b) does not rely exclusively on micro properties (the entropy of a gas is not something you can share among the individual molecules, to the best of my understanding)
c) does a better job of describing things than what could be done using only the micro properties

That said, it's a model, it can be tested, it works. Things ID can't really say with a straight face.

Again, you're discussing the pragmatics of model choice.

 

[Interesting Ian]

And Bill, the scientismist, apparently doesn't realize that the profitability of one method of analysis doesn't imply the unprofitability of others.

MESchlum's analogies are quite good. It is profitable to isolate the components and processes in a puddle of water and thereby to study the chemical processes of the component molecules. It's also useful to leave the puddle, conceptually, as a whole and thereby to study its mechanical and biological processes.

Well I'm not denying that. Imagine studying human behaviour simply by reference to elementary particles! No, we need psychology. But that doesn't mean to say that in principle we could not reduce psychology to the behaviour of elementary particles. Same for the puddle of water. Do you see the point I'm getting at?

"Catalysis," for example, by definition cannot be studied by analyzing the components of the reaction in isolation, since catalysis only exists when the substances are brought together. Since most of life is based on protein catalysis, I wonder how you think biologists operate.

Of course Biology is essential, as is Chemistry, sociology etc. But you must have heard of the argument that all sciences are reducible to physics?? You know, sociology is reducible to psychology, to biology, to chemistry, to physics and then micro-physics. Reductionism has been one of the guiding principle of science ever since the birth of "modern" science in the 17th century.

 

[MESchlum]

Which is kinda like saying we have to use psychological concepts to explain behaviour. But nevertheless it is still widely assumd that in principle our behaviour is explicable by virtue of micro-physics. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong. Have you got any references that chaos theory and thermodynamics exhibet emergent phenomena, which, in principle cannot be discerned from an analysis of parts?

See above. Entropy of a gas. Extremely useful to understand how a gas behaves, of no value when looking at individual molecules (it's a measure of the "randomness" of how the gas, as a whole, is distributed).

If I understand the question right, see planetary motion: a keplerian orbit appears when there are two masses. Taking each one alone, you wouldn't expect anything. I suspect this later example won't work, but I'm not up to par on the terminology, so clearer questions (using simple words) make me happier.

Well, gravity is the 4th force. Electromagnetism and the strong and weak interactions in nuclear phenomena have all been reduced and shown to be mainifestations of the same basic equation. It is believed by physicists that gravity too will be shown to do so eventually.

Blah? So the entire purpose of crystallography is to derive a TOE? As is astronomy? As is fluid dynamics? As is optics? Sorry, my plausibility meter has just gone through the roof.

The search for a TOE is a branch of physics, but it is far from being the one holy grail that is its only purpose. It's not even represented in physics per se - more of a series of atempts to combine different branches.

Again, this is my take, my vocabulary, my understanding. YMMV.

 

[MESchlum]

Not quite. The statement is that macro properties derive (here, meaning emerge) from micro ones. Furthermore the macro properties cannot and do not violate underlying principles. How one derives (in either the mathematical or experimental sense) is a different issue.

Okay. Fine by me. My confusion comes from the fact that a number of macro properties, which make macro models easy to deal with (and in fact possible) do not scale down.

Temperature, entropy, etc. Useful with many molecules, almost meaningless on the individual scale. I think (or at least severely reformulated).

Here, you've switched to pragmatism, a different matter from the hierarchy of science and mathematics. The latter is the issue being discussed.

Again, you're discussing the pragmatics of model choice.

See above for my reasons. I agree that physics comes from matter and energy (and gravity, and...). I disagree that a macro model of the world using only micro level properties would have any useful predicitive power. If that isn't the issue, then I have no objections. Terminology gets me every time, I guess.

 

[BillHoyt]

Okay. Fine by me. My confusion comes from the fact that a number of macro properties, which make macro models easy to deal with (and in fact possible) do not scale down.

I'm not claiming otherwise. I don't think anyone else here is, either. In fact, it is the other way around, entirely.

Temperature, entropy, etc. Useful with many molecules, almost meaningless on the individual scale. I think (or at least severely reformulated).

I'm not sure what you mean by "individual scale" here.

See above for my reasons. I agree that physics comes from matter and energy (and gravity, and...). I disagree that a macro model of the world using only micro level properties would have any useful predicitive power. If that isn't the issue, then I have no objections. Terminology gets me every time, I guess.

The position I am taking is that the macro levels derive from the micro levels. This is the position science takes, and is fully supported by all available evidence.

 

[MESchlum]

I'm not claiming otherwise. I don't think anyone else here is, either. In fact, it is the other way around, entirely.

Then my imperfect understanding of how "reductionism" was used is to blame.

I'm not sure what you mean by "individual scale" here.

Single atoms, say.

The position I am taking is that the macro levels derive from the micro levels. This is the position science takes, and is fully supported by all available evidence.

And I agree with it as well. See prior posts - terminology gets me every time.

The philosophy / confusion / inane arguments can now proceed apace.

 

[BillHoyt]

Single atoms, say.

But single atoms have a temperature.

 

[Hellbound]

Actually, I like the three-body problem in regards to the confusion here.

If you examine each member of a three body system individually, without regard to the presence of the other two, then yes, it won't work. However, this is not reductionism (except in some people's absurb sense); this is ignoring the problem. The properties of the three-body interaction are still derived from the basic case. What this means is that the gravitational constant doesn't suddenly become 124.3 if three bodys interact...the basic equations are the same. Gravity doesn't suddenyl change to follow a inverse cube law, it's still square. Etc, etc, etc. The first principles from individual elements and properties still apply to the larger grouping, and in fact these elements interacting lead to the behavior of the larger grouping.

Protein folding is another good example. No, you can't look at a single molecule and descibe various protein interactions. That's not reductionist, that's ignorance and self-induced blindness. However, the compelx actions of the proteins all rely upon the interacting properties of the amino acids involved and environment of the protien, which in turn rely upon various molecular interactions and laws for their structure and properties, which in turn come fromt he atomic interactions and principles, which in turn come from quantum effects and micro-physics. That's all reductionsism is...it is not the idea that one can work out the properties of the entire universe by looking at a single electron, but that a single electron follows specific laws of nature whether floating by itself, orbiting a nucleus, involved in a plasma cloud, beaming through a TV tube, or being compressed into a neutron star. The individual elements interact to produce effects on a larger scale, which then interact to produce larger effects, which then interact to produce larger effects, etc.

Using Ian's ridiculous definitions, the property of distance implies dualism and is non-reduceable. Looking at a single element, concepts of distance and position are unknown and, in fact, unknowable. However, the properties of an object do not change radically because another object exists; the laws for the single object apply equally to the two, although new behavior may emerge by the interaction fo these objects.