eupolicy.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
This Mastodon server is a friendly and respectful discussion space for people working in areas related to EU policy. When you request to create an account, please tell us something about you.

Server stats:

224
active users

#reductionism

1 post1 participant0 posts today
mindsets<p>"In the study of anything outside human affairs, including the study of complexity, it is only simplicity that can be interesting."</p><p>This—perhaps controversial—quote, about the value of exploring fundamental principles, is from Steven Weinberg in "Is the Universe a Computer?", THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, volume 49, number 16, p. 43. It is worth considering, at least.</p><p><a href="https://mindly.social/tags/reductionism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>reductionism</span></a><br><a href="https://mindly.social/tags/StevenWeinberg" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>StevenWeinberg</span></a></p><p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven</span><span class="invisible">_Weinberg</span></a></p>
Philo Sophies<p>There's no spice in <a href="https://troet.cafe/tags/brevity" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>brevity</span></a> - about the <a href="https://troet.cafe/tags/insufficiency" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>insufficiency</span></a> of <a href="https://troet.cafe/tags/shortened" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>shortened</span></a> <a href="https://troet.cafe/tags/media" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>media</span></a></p><p>I would like to take a "brief" look at a <a href="https://troet.cafe/tags/media" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>media</span></a> <a href="https://troet.cafe/tags/phenomenon" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>phenomenon</span></a>. It's about the fact that “brevity is the spice of life”. During my <a href="https://troet.cafe/tags/studies" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>studies</span></a> in <a href="https://troet.cafe/tags/SocialMedia" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>SocialMedia</span></a>, I noticed a special form of <a href="https://troet.cafe/tags/reductionism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>reductionism</span></a> (in the literal sense, however), which is already close to <a href="https://troet.cafe/tags/emptying" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>emptying</span></a> of meaning or <a href="https://troet.cafe/tags/dilution" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>dilution</span></a> of <a href="https://troet.cafe/tags/content" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>content</span></a>. Just like this text ;-)</p><p><a href="https://philosophies.de/index.php/2024/05/26/kuerze-keine-wuerze/" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">philosophies.de/index.php/2024</span><span class="invisible">/05/26/kuerze-keine-wuerze/</span></a></p>
Philo Sophies<p>There's no spice in <a href="https://planetearth.social/tags/brevity" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>brevity</span></a> - about the <a href="https://planetearth.social/tags/insufficiency" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>insufficiency</span></a> of <a href="https://planetearth.social/tags/shortened" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>shortened</span></a> <a href="https://planetearth.social/tags/media" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>media</span></a></p><p>I would like to take a "brief" look at a <a href="https://planetearth.social/tags/media" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>media</span></a> <a href="https://planetearth.social/tags/phenomenon" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>phenomenon</span></a>. It's about the fact that “brevity is the spice of life”. During my <a href="https://planetearth.social/tags/studies" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>studies</span></a> in <a href="https://planetearth.social/tags/SocialMedia" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>SocialMedia</span></a>, I noticed a special form of <a href="https://planetearth.social/tags/reductionism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>reductionism</span></a> (in the literal sense, however), which is already close to <a href="https://planetearth.social/tags/emptying" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>emptying</span></a> of meaning or <a href="https://planetearth.social/tags/dilution" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>dilution</span></a> of <a href="https://planetearth.social/tags/content" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>content</span></a>. Just like this text ;-)</p><p><a href="https://philosophies.de/index.php/2024/05/26/kuerze-keine-wuerze/" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">philosophies.de/index.php/2024</span><span class="invisible">/05/26/kuerze-keine-wuerze/</span></a></p>
jan”Geometry, for example, is a convenient abstraction; it is not concrete reality. … Reductionism is a method, not an ontology. An ethical corollary: when we realize every entity feels at some scale, we might rethink certain experiments that cause suffering.”<br>—Matthew Segall, Prehensions, Propositions, and the Cosmological Commons<br><a class="hashtag" href="https://pleroma.microblog.se/tag/abstraction" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#abstraction</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://pleroma.microblog.se/tag/reductionism" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#reductionism</a> <a class="hashtag" href="https://pleroma.microblog.se/tag/ethics" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#ethics</a>
UniversityofGroningenLibrary<p>New in our electronic <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/collection" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>collection</span></a>:</p><p>➡️ Levels of Explanation </p><p>🔗 <a href="https://academic.oup.com/book/59296" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="">academic.oup.com/book/59296</span><span class="invisible"></span></a></p><p><a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>OpenAccess</span></a> <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/OpenScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>OpenScience</span></a> <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/PhilosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfScience</span></a> <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/philosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>philosophy</span></a> <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/methodology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>methodology</span></a> <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/reductionism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>reductionism</span></a> <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/metaphysics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>metaphysics</span></a></p>
Preston MacDougall<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mas.to/@tg9541" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>tg9541</span></a></span> OK, I have read Stuart Kauffman’s book “At Home in the Universe”, and am familiar with the concept of ‘emergence’, as well as the philosophical conflict concerning <a href="https://mstdn.science/tags/reductionism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>reductionism</span></a>. But I am also skeptical of <a href="https://mstdn.science/tags/math" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>math</span></a> substituting for <a href="https://mstdn.science/tags/science" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>science</span></a> - as in <a href="https://mstdn.science/tags/StringTheory" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>StringTheory</span></a>.</p><p>To get to the point of this limited toot, I recall from long ago the discovery (by radiolabeling) that “biological structures are replaced every 8 weeks”, but more recent experiments refuted its generality.</p>
ᛕᎥᕼᗷᗴᖇᑎᗴ丅Ꭵᑕᔕ<p><span class="h-card"><a href="https://mas.to/@tg9541" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>tg9541</span></a></span> </p><p>I believe Rosen is complaining here only about one particular type of <a href="https://qoto.org/tags/reductionism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>reductionism</span></a> - <a href="https://qoto.org/tags/computationalism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>computationalism</span></a>.</p><p>I think he was very well aware that all anticipatory systems must maintain some (reduced) # model of reality in order to **anticipate** how things in their environments that may affect them are likely to unfold.<br>Science cannot dispense of "good reductionism" such as, for example, Searle's Biological Naturalism.</p><p>The excerpt is from R. L. Kuhn's "Landscape of Consciousness"</p><p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610723001128#sec9" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">sciencedirect.com/science/arti</span><span class="invisible">cle/pii/S0079610723001128#sec9</span></a></p>
Thomas<p>In his work Anticipatory Systems, <a href="https://mas.to/tags/RobertRosen" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>RobertRosen</span></a> carefully introduces readers with knowledge of Cybernetics to the foundations of mathematics so that the formal limits of methodological approaches like <a href="https://mas.to/tags/modelling" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>modelling</span></a>, reasoning and <a href="https://mas.to/tags/deduction" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>deduction</span></a> in their domain of <a href="https://mas.to/tags/science" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>science</span></a> becomes obvious. Later he would do the same for a more general audience in Life Itself. The reasoning is very similar, clear, and formally sound. Still scientists will sheepishly adhere to believe in <a href="https://mas.to/tags/reductionism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>reductionism</span></a>.</p>
Thomas<p>The case against <a href="https://mas.to/tags/Reductionism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Reductionism</span></a> and <a href="https://mas.to/tags/Determinism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Determinism</span></a> built by <a href="https://mas.to/tags/RobertRosen" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>RobertRosen</span></a> is very solid. Yet it's hard work to get workers trained in theoretical frameworks to consider it.</p>
mj<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@ScienceCommunicator" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>ScienceCommunicator</span></a></span> </p><p>We have 2 important considerations regarding this topic, IMO.</p><p>One is that we are not separate from the world we study. That we must always allow for interactions we find in similar subjects external to us to be operating in similar fashion inside of our own <a href="https://c.im/tags/systems" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>systems</span></a>. That is, we cannot build our models separately, with the outcome of purely phenomenological &amp; physiological perspectives. Of course, where the similarities are few, those unique views are necessary. Consciousness would be one area where our experience should be included &amp; weighed heavy in the model.</p><p>The other comes from <a href="https://c.im/tags/reductionism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>reductionism</span></a>, and the need to incorporate boundaries, phase changes, and other <a href="https://c.im/tags/emergent" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>emergent</span></a> phenomena that won't agree with the <a href="https://c.im/tags/linear" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>linear</span></a> summation during the reconstruction of the parts we identified on the way down.</p><p>So going down the chain of molecules, elements, and atoms, for example, is not different from examining <a href="https://c.im/tags/evolution" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>evolution</span></a> connections, or life itself. There is no reverse at some points, and even where there is time reversal <a href="https://c.im/tags/symmetry" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>symmetry</span></a>, the paths are not always direct, 1:1 increments. (see 'islands of stability', for example)</p><p>We have a bad tendency of always ending up framing it in black or white terms, like " <a href="https://c.im/tags/nature" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>nature</span></a> vs nurture", when the actual situations nearly always require both.</p><p>One of the unfortunate elements of the <a href="https://c.im/tags/scientific" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>scientific</span></a> method centered on reduction is that the first impression (indeed very strong) comes in the results section, from the questions asked at the start. Those have been stripped of all <a href="https://c.im/tags/context" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>context</span></a> variation &amp; complexity, and that is where it leaves off in most cases. For the vast majority of humans, the deeper layers are never seen or explored; the simplified meme is what propagates most prolifically.</p><p>Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to layer the <a href="https://c.im/tags/complexity" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>complexity</span></a> back in, one layer at a time, and continue our pursuit of higher <a href="https://c.im/tags/knowledge" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>knowledge</span></a>. This will require some modifications to our current system!</p>
Jim Donegan 🎵 ✅<p><a href="https://mastodon.scot/tags/NanceyMurphy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>NanceyMurphy</span></a> - Is <a href="https://mastodon.scot/tags/Emergence" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Emergence</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.scot/tags/Fundamental" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Fundamental</span></a>? </p><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVJgHqZv13o" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">youtube.com/watch?v=yVJgHqZv13</span><span class="invisible">o</span></a> </p><p><a href="https://mastodon.scot/tags/Philosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Philosophy</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.scot/tags/Metaphysics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Metaphysics</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.scot/tags/PhilosophOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophOfScience</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.scot/tags/Science" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Science</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.scot/tags/Biology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Biology</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.scot/tags/Reductionism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Reductionism</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.scot/tags/StrongEmergence" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>StrongEmergence</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.scot/tags/WeakEmergence" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>WeakEmergence</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.scot/tags/Causation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Causation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.scot/tags/SelfDirection" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>SelfDirection</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.scot/tags/Cell" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Cell</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.scot/tags/Cells" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Cells</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.scot/tags/CloserToTruth" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>CloserToTruth</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.scot/tags/RobertKuhn" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>RobertKuhn</span></a></p>
realcaseyrollins ✝️<span class=""><span class="h-card"><a class="u-url mention" href="https://zirk.us/@interfluidity" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>interfluidity</span></a></span> </span><span class="h-card"><a class="u-url mention" href="https://zirk.us/@interfluidity" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>interfluidity</span></a></span> <br>I ain't reading all that, but I skimmed do agree with this:<br><br>&gt; Goaded by “incentives to produce”, participants in the financial industry do a lot of “innovating” that amounts to finding ways of skimming invisible or unexpected fees from people<br><br>There is a scourge of big companies getting either a) subsidies, b) grants or c) tax deductions that have a range of negative consequences (my favorite example of this is how subsidies and government funding has driven up the cost of healthcare). And beyond that, they're unfair. Why should <a class="hashtag" href="https://social.teci.world/tag/amazon" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Amazon</a> get millions of dollars from a state for building a factory and creating jobs? The revenue should be reward enough, and if the state can't make the company feel like they'll get some good revenue by operating there, then the state should do what it can to fix its economy.<br><br>But I care about this issue not because it's bad for people to be billionaires, but oftentimes billionaires are paid to mask or put a band-aid on an existing issue, which sometimes leaves people who don't work with that company even worse off than before.<br><br>Maybe that's your position, IDK, it actually seems like we agree more here than I thought we did. I just think that saying "the existence of billionaires is a policy failure" is <a class="hashtag" href="https://social.teci.world/tag/reductionism" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#reductionism</a> at best.