EPTWhat Are You Reading 2014 - Page 57
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21248 Posts
| ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
| ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On September 07 2014 17:36 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: I need something short relaxing and fun to read now ;; I'd recommend something from Wolfgang Herrndorf. I think "Why we took the car" (Tschick) is the only one with an english translation however. recently finished: ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/Mind_and_Cosmos_cover.JPG) Very interesting to read, but I think that the author makes some bold claims and demands to many requirements I dont agree with. Until i find a more compelling argumentation, I will remain a materialistic neo darwinist. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
some stuff I'm starting: ![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51tzsEl1cDL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61HnctWlGiL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/fanon/images/wretched.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://press.princeton.edu/images/k4744.gif) finished this yesterday. I thought this was a really great book: ![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51-rG2bK7VL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg) | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On September 07 2014 17:46 ComaDose wrote: as a fantasy reader: have you masturbated to the mistborn series yet? its short relaxing and fun The on-going Stormlight Archive is much better (from the same author). But you're right, Mistborn is shorter. | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On September 08 2014 04:17 bookwyrm wrote: you can do better than nagel for a critique of neo-darwinism. I recommend looking into the work of Stuart Kauffman. Levins and Lewontin _the Dialectical Biologist_ is also highly recommended. Well, I was mainly interseted in the critique of the reductionistic materialistic standpoint regarding science as a whole, and not so much in the debate about biology and neo-darwinistic evolution. Does these author cover this too, cause they seem more focused on biological topics? | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
| ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On September 08 2014 06:42 bookwyrm wrote: I think the two topics are pretty inextricable, to be honest. But I'm not sure I believe in an entity called "science as a whole" so I don't know what one would mean by such a position. I don't think there's anything that could be called "reductionism" which is even a tenable philosophical position anymore after Mandelbrot. not as a philosphical position, but as a principle which is dominating modern natural sciences | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
| ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
| ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
basically everything in science that a reductionist paradigm can cope with is boring and soooo 20th century. the interesting and relevant problems for today are all about nonlinear dynamical systems which you can't study very well with reductionist assumptions and progress in these fields is being hindered by reductionism. so we just disagree about the fact of whether this thing "modern science" in fact "works just fine" with reductionist assumptions but I'm not sure I understand what's at stake for you when you say you are a "reductionist" or you want to defend "reductionism." as opposed to what? | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
That such interactions often evolve into nonlinear dynamics and that other apporaches are needed to solve the problem is irrelevant to the principle itself. Alternatives are difficult to imagine, which is why i was interested in the book. Nagel e.g. trys to present a teleological approach. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
I recommend Manuel DeLanda's "Virtual Science and Intensive Philosophy" which is a very lucid and rigorous discussion of this type of issue reality is an object which has a dimensionality which is both very high and irrational (it is multidimensional and fractal). consider the Mandelbrot set. The complete description for how to generate the set is extremely small. The object itself is (literally) infinitely complex. Reality is like that. So reductionism is false. this can be translated into Zizekian terms as well: the epistemological gap between the transcendental subject and the things-in-themselves (Kant) is actually inscribed into the objects themselves, in fact it is precisely this gap which IS the ontology of the object (Hegel) reductionism is a perfectly fine way to study relatively easy problems. on the other hand, ptolemaic astronomy is a perfectly fine way to make certain sorts of predictions about many kinds of relatively mundane astronomical events. it's pretty good at what it does. | ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PeHC_tpMyoo/TPp_8EySueI/AAAAAAAAAdA/4MPQ4XXqwJg/s1600/the-gypsy.jpg) Because Steven Brust and Robin Hobb -- er, I mean Megan Lindholm. It'll either be a disaster or the best romp in the world. | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On September 08 2014 09:48 bookwyrm wrote: It's not irrelevant to the principle. Nonlinear dynamics mean that the explanation of physical reality ("description of") is larger than physical reality itself. therefore according to your definition materialistic reductionism is false. there can't be a reductionistic explanation of the universe because that explanation wouldn't fit inside the universe. I recommend Manuel DeLanda's "Virtual Science and Intensive Philosophy" which is a very lucid and rigorous discussion of this type of issue reality is an object which has a dimensionality which is both very high and irrational (it is multidimensional and fractal). consider the Mandelbrot set. The complete description for how to generate the set is extremely small. The object itself is (literally) infinitely complex. Reality is like that. So reductionism is false. this can be translated into Zizekian terms as well: the epistemological gap between the transcendental subject and the things-in-themselves (Kant) is actually inscribed into the objects themselves, in fact it is precisely this gap which IS the ontology of the object (Hegel) reductionism is a perfectly fine way to study relatively easy problems. on the other hand, ptolemaic astronomy is a perfectly fine way to make certain sorts of predictions about many kinds of relatively mundane astronomical events. it's pretty good at what it does. No, they dont mean that. Or rather, why would the mean that? I dont really understand why you use "nonlinear" contrary to reductionistic. A system where everything can be described by/reduced to the nonlinear dynamics of the elements remains reductionistic. The same apllies to a system with linear dynamics of the elements. Take the famous Lorenz system to describe a hydrodynamic system. Theoretical, one could describe the entire system by calculating the movement of every single molecule. Of course, this would be to difficult to calculate, which is why one uses the Lorenz system to model the dynamic. However, the idea that reality in theory can be fully described by describing the single elements remains intact. Thank you for the recommendation tho, i wil check that out. also, the Zizekian wording is a perfect example why one shouldnt translate things into Zizekian terms ; ) | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
You keep saying "can be described" but it's not clear to me where it is that this description takes place. The description can take place ONLY in the full instantiation of the system. There can be no description of the system other than the system itself. This completely undermines reductionism. I don't believe that your imaginary observer who could "theoretically" model the entire system by tracking every particle is metaphysically possible (because there's no way to describe the system in an amount of information that is less than the system itself - this is the implication of the Lorenz equations which you yourself invoked). So your conclusions about reality all derive from the false assumption of the hypothetical existence of such an observer - and it is this false assumption which gives rise to your illusion about reductionism. Or rather, it IS metaphysically possible, but this observer is simply reality itself. The Zizekian terms make complete sense, in fact it is one of the best ways to think about this  It's not my fault you aren't down with the German Idealism! That formulation is actually quite precise. But you can ignore it if it doesn't help you  But that's too bad as he is one of the great philosophical thinkers of our time (in addition to being a clownish cultural commentator)Basically I believe that your "difficult to calculate" is not just a fact about human epistemological frailty, it is an ontological fact about reality. It's not that fluid dynamics are just difficult to calculate FOR US, it's that they are difficult to calculate IN THEMSELVES (here you will see the Zizek thing if you think about it and don't prejudice yourself against "philosophy mumbo jumbo") you're too obsessed with trying to establish the continuity of low-level causation. Yes, yes, of course there is a complete unbroken chain of low-level causation in all the micro events which make up everything which is reality. If you are defending this you are arguing against 18th century theology (like Malebranche and stuff) and it's not interesting. The point is that you can't use that messy micro-level causality to understand anything about high-level emergent causality (which DOES exist). That is, you can't explain why the Mandelbrot set looks like the Mandelbrot set under a deterministic research paradigm - because the only way you can explain the set is to generate it, and generating is not explaining (because an explanation must be smaller than the thing you are explaining, otherwise it's just a tautology) Your realize... your attempt to save "reductionism" requires the postulate of the existence of an observer who exists outside time and space, can see everything, and can process information at arbitrary speeds. Basically, in order to save your idea of reductionism, you have to assume the existence of God!!!! The full implication of atheist materialism is that reductionism must be false. Also, you're now arguing the opposite side of the debate from what you said you wanted to argue about. When you talk about Lorenz equations you are admitting that you can't use reductionism as a practical research methodology, but trying to defend it as nonetheless a metaphysical truth! That's the complete opposite of what you said you wanted, which was that you weren't interested in the "philosophical" thing but only in whether "modern science" could "work just fine" with reductionism. Which in the case of something even so simple as fluid dynamics, it can't! Which is why I said that I didn't know how there could possibly be anything called "reductionism" which was a serious position in the 21st century. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
non-linear system := a system wherein superposition principle (relating input to output) does not hold. the concept of linearity and non-linearity are both defined on the model of the system, not the system itself. a consequence of your initial assumptions about the system(from which you constructed the model). of course you can not have perfect knowledge about the system (unless you are ~god). causal interactions are not exclusive to linear systems, and may produce both linear and non-linear dynamics. it seems to be that Paljas is using the term 'reductionist' about modelling, while bookwyrm is using it about the superposition principle which holds in a linear model. as far as i can tell it can be used to describe both. edit: the last book i read was a confederacy of dunces - john k toole i laughed a lot. short read too. recommended. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
I think the important part is the distinction between generating and explaining. The laws of physics might generate biology but they certainly don't explain it. the equation "z_{n+1}=z_n^2+c" generates the Mandelbrot set but doesn't explain it (and can't even be said to describe it). Hegel was the first to make this point. Here is the relevant section from the preface to the phenomenology: The truth is the whole. The whole, however, is merely the essential nature reaching its completeness through the process of its own development. Of the Absolute it must be said that it is essentially a result, that only at the end is it what it is in very truth; and just in that consists its nature, which is to be actual, subject, or self-becoming, self-development. Should it appear contradictory to say that the Absolute has to be conceived essentially as a result, a little consideration will set this appearance of contradiction in its true light. The beginning, the principle, or the Absolute, as at first or immediately expressed, is merely the universal. If we say “all animals”, that does not pass for zoology; for the same reason we see at once that the words absolute, divine, eternal, and so on do not express what is implied in them; and only mere words like these, in point of fact, express intuition as the immediate. Whatever is more than a word like that, even the mere transition to a proposition, is a form of mediation, contains a process towards another state from which we must return once more. It is this process of mediation, however, that is rejected with horror, as if absolute knowledge were being surrendered when more is made of mediation than merely the assertion that it is nothing absolute, and does not exist in the Absolute. in my opinion this is the single most important passage in the history of philosophy Paljas is going back and forth between making a claim about modeling and making a claim about metaphysics, as I pointed out above. I'm making the same claim about both - I'm saying that what might seem to be an epistemological problem about modeling is actually an ontological problem about reality itself. That's what the passage from Kant to Hegel in Zizek's system implies - this is the fundamental tenet of his philosophical system and I think that he is quite right. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18876 Posts
| ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
all known physical systems give rise to non-linear models unless you simplify your initial assumptions. this is why i assumed you were referring to linear models vs non-linear models in your earlier post. i am not familiar with any other notion of linearity or non-linearity, in particular i am not familiar with one defined on the systems themselves. if you can explain or link i might educate myself. | ||
| ||
