But you haven't done that. You haven't started with things arising from the laws of physics and worked from there. You started with purpose and meaning and chairness and this drove you to look at physics, and you learned something *on top of* your existing knowledge and capacity
-
-
Replying to @ReferentOfSelf @CurlOfGradient
You then turn around and try to replace all this knowledge and ability that allowed you in the first place to understand and do physics with that physics itself, and base all that understanding on top of the physics
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @CurlOfGradient
How so? You still deal with chairs as simply objectively existing without ever referencing the atoms. You aren't a reductionist in practice in 99% of your everyday dealings with the world
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ReferentOfSelf
Because I don't need to be one 99% of the time. That doesn't mean we can't reduce things when we need to.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CurlOfGradient @ReferentOfSelf
This is like saying computers don't have transistors because 99% of the time I interface with them in terms of programs.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CurlOfGradient
More like your programs exist as things themselves and there are meaningful things you can do and say about them that can't be reduced to action on and behaviour of transistors because by moving transistors you have thrown away the language needed to say what you wanted to say
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ReferentOfSelf
What is a property of the program that can't be reduced to the actions of transistors?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CurlOfGradient
"this program reduces to the action of transistors"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.
)