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
-
-
-
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 -
Replying to @ReferentOfSelf
That's a property of the program plus its environment, I will admit that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CurlOfGradient @ReferentOfSelf
At least, it is a property of the program that requires a mind outside the program to see.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
But that mind outside the program will check it over and say "Yup, this program is the result of the transistors obeying simple circuit laws."
-
-
Replying to @CurlOfGradient
What about "this program will behave like this when I click this button?" you can't reduce the program to transistors, only particular installations on particular architectures individually...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ReferentOfSelf @CurlOfGradient
And what if we make new cpu architectures and operating systems and make the installer for the program compatible with them?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 4 more replies
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.