That is aside from the fact that ‘explanation’ is itself a cognitive activity. Explanations must be graspable by human minds. It is thus not clear that everything can be explained (by humans) at every or any level (of detail).
-
-
Replying to @IrisVanRooij @chazfirestone and
This to me just comes down to a difference in use of "explanation" in this case. I'm OK with saying something is so difficult to explain it's essentially unexplainable. That's dif than something being, on principle, unexplainable in terms of something else.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @neurograce @IrisVanRooij and
I guess it boils to whether you believe the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts, whether you believe emergent phenomena exist, right?
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @neurograce and
I haven't read this paper in years but I recall it helped me structure my own thoughts on this issue in a more coherent way: Bersini, H. (2012). Emergent phenomena belong only to biology. Synthese, 185(2), 257-272.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9724-4 …
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @neurograce and
I haven't read this literature in years... I spent the whole of 2008/9 really geeking out on top-down, bottom-up, mid-out analyses (saw Iris use this last term/made me smile), as an UG in CS. Nobody in CS is a dualist but they certainly believe in levels of abstraction.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @neurograce and
But anyway, my point is that yes, you can probably explain stuff in terms of quantum mechanics for every subject. There could be a theory of economics that explained it using QM... but would that be a useful account? I would argue: no.
3 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @IrisVanRooij and
Thats totally reasonable. But it seems people have somehow turned "it's not useful" into "it's not possible." At least that's what I feel like I'm see occasionally & that makes no sense to me.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @neurograce @IrisVanRooij and
I think you need to unpack what they mean by "possible".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @neurograce @IrisVanRooij and
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply you you (Grace) just the dialogue needs to probe that. Because "possible" might easily mean "impractical" or even "unfeasible". Somethings are physically possible but practically impossible.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
I mean for real, would you task a person (or even a team) with doing economics in a quantum mechanical framework?
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @neurograce and
True, but I meant even more in principle limits applying to any idealized computational agent.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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.