Talk:Reduction (philosophy)

Nagel

Nagel's classic treatment, and its relation to non-reductive physicalism, are conspicuous by their absence. Also some sense of the many varieties of reduction on the market today, e.g. the model-theoretic approaches of Moulines, Sneed, etc. Jyoshimi 05:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wording

Am I the only one who thinks it would be more natural to express things like this

If we reduce X to Y, then whenever we talk about X, we can be understood to be talking about Y instead.

like this instead

If our worldview is such that X reduces to Y, then whenever someone talks about X, we understand them to be actually talking about Y.

The first explanation suggests reduction is just a matter of terminology, not so much a matter of how the world actually is. The clarify further I'm even tempted to add something like:

Furthermore, we understand that X does not actually exist; it is only a conventional, shorthand way of referring to Y.

Is this insanity?

--Ryguasu 01:20 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

---

Types of reduction

1) The statements on color are either a misunderstanding or oversimplification. Color is "determined by how light bounces off a surface" only in terms of the end result and not in the method. And it is definitely not "determined by how that object is extended in space". The editor is probably thinking of a prism or diffraction grating, in which light waves of all (visible) frequencies are refracted or dispersed, but these processes do not determine color in the objects named. A prism, for example, is transparent and not colored because the incident light is differentially slowed but not absorbed by the prism. A colored object is colored because the incident light is absorbed (or not) depending on the energy required for a photon absorbtion and interorbital electron transition, which is not dependent on extension in space. (An electron is effectively dimensionless) --Blainster 22:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2) Self-reproduction is now known not to be an exclusive attribute of life, as certain crystals and some polypeptides can reproduce themselves. So we should seek better examples here. --Blainster 22:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delisting as "good article"

First of all, whoever listed this article forgot to place the "good article" template here. Secondly, this article clearly needs improvement for such an important notion. It can be further expanded and could to with some care on the aesthetic side. In comparison to other articles listed as "good articles", this one stands rather poorly (even in comparison to unlisted articles about more specific notions), so I am delisting it until it reaches a certain level of excellence. (No harm intended) --Kripkenstein 04:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

--Lacatosias 08:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC) I back this decision. I don't think it's partcicaulr important wther it is listed ot not listed though, except in for as it's intended to signal that the artcile needs much improvement. It most certainly does, on many levels. The point is to work together to improve the article. I will get on that as soon as I can, but I am overwhelmed with work right now.

The review of Physics continues at Talk:Physics/wip

Some time ago a group of editors set up a "work in progress" page (at Talk:Physics/wip) to hammer out a consensus for the Physics article, which for too long had been in an unstable state. Discussion of the lead for the article has taken a great deal of time and thousands of words. The definitional and philosophical foundations seem to cause most headaches; but progress has been made. Why not review some of the proposals for the lead material that people are putting forward, or put forward your own, or simply join the discussion? The more contributors the better, for a consensus. – Noetica 01:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Concrete proposals have now been put forward, arising from recent discussion aimed at producing a stable and consensual lead section for the Physics article. We have set up a straw poll, for comments on the proposals. Why not drop in at Talk:Physics/wip, and have your say? The more the better! – Noetica 22:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How does this article differ from reductionism?

The reductionism article begins with In philosophy - and appears to cover basically the same material as this one, though perhaps in a little more detail. A clear indication of the different scopes of these two articles needs to be made somewhere on the pages of both articles. Richard001 21:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This and reductionism are completely different things. --AnY FOUR! (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

no merge, it may look similar but there are different thing.I am removing merge because of consensus and it is more then 1 year old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IngerAlHaosului (talk • contribs) 16:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no difference between the two. They should be merged. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 06:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Boiling Point Atomic properties

An analogy to boiling point being reducible to atomic properties is made in this article. While true, I think a better analogy would be to molecular properties.

The atomic properties make the molecule possible, yeah, and some of the atomic properties are directly transferred to the molecule, such as water's high boiling point being related to the electronegativity of O and H, but molecular may be a better analogy for two reasons:

1. It doesn't have drawbacks, really, as atomic properties are subsumed into the properties of the molecule, and 2. The molecular properties create the expressed property more directly and absolutely. For example, boiling point of benzene vs cyclohexane or water and hydrogen peroxide. These are explained by molecular properties that do not manifest necessarily from the atomic properties, the bonds and consequent properties are more than directly knowing both H20 and H2O2 are both oxygen and water or C6H6 and C6H12 are both hydrocarbons.

A triviality and the article isn't incorrect, just thought I'd through in some pedantic crap. :D --ΔΜ (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

horrible, horrible article

the crap about bundles? wtf?

how about thermodynamics to statistical mechanics genes to stretches of dna classical mechanics to relativistic dynamics

cite the churchlands, wimsatt, bechtel, etc..

as is, this is worse than a dog turd.