Where are the contradictions?
Just because we are too computationally limited to do the reduction in full does not mean we have reason to believe the reduction can't be done in principle. (Bracing for your inevitable "what do you mean by "in principle" reply)
-
-
I'll try a different tract: In the meantime, we still need to deal with these things we can't "yet" reduce as things on their own terms, existing in their own right, becuase without the reduction we have no way of establishing their reality
-
The objects doing a thing at this level is real, regardless of whether you know how it reduces to a lower level. My reductionism does not say "only the bottom level is real". It just says that higher levels supervene on lower levels. All levels are "real".
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.