What I said last time led to a lot of interesting discussion and I can't respond to everything in detail, but here's a few comments:
-
Show this thread
-
"Mechanical" might have been a bad word, it actually comes from Christopher Alexander's Nature of Order that I'm currently reading, where he connects the rise of a "mechanistic" worldview as a result of 20th century physics to a mechanistic, lifeless view of architecture.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
I don't see that link as necessary, since I'm as mechanist/materialist/physicalist/computationalist (they all mean the same to me) as they come but entirety agree with him on aesthetics.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
My intended meaning is captured perfectly by
@Meaningness comment about "physics-like".1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
In addition, I see no way that (the study object of) physics is not more fundamental than (the study object of) other disciplines. But being more fundamental doesn't mean entitled to more respect or that understanding it means you understand everything else.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
I would say everything ultimately reduces to physics ("the world runs on a set of rules" seems tautologically true), but only theoretically since actually doing so is practically impossible and useless.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Still, reality doesn't "really" have different "levels" (nothing like that is encoded in the rules), that's all a matter of representation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Finally, as might be obvious by now, I do think reality can be represented perfectly - in theory, not in practice. If you could duplicate the universe, one would be a perfect representation of the other.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Vagueness is a feature of the relationship between a representation (concept) and what it represents, a "thing" itself can't be vague.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @everytstudies
Thanks for interesting discussion… we mostly agree up to this particular tweet. There are no “things” that are *not* vague. Feynman (the physics dude) explained this in his analysis of the wine and glass. There’s no fact-of-the-matter about which one a particular atom belongs to
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
I think you may be aware of this problem, and that is why you put “things” in scare quotes?
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
Yes. Sometimes you have to, you know... use language like a normal person
*puffs pipe*0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.