Feels like in the top-down universe, science shouldn’t work at all. I mean, when you take a magnifying glass and look at the details, they are supposedly generated on the fly to fit the larger picture. Then you apply munchkinry to the details and invent an atomic bomb or quantum computer… which means… what exactly, from the top-down perspective?
Yeah, you can find an excuse, e.g. that some of those top-down principles are hidden like Easter eggs, waiting to be discovered later. That the Platonic idea of smartphones has been waiting for us since the creation of the universe, but was only revealed to the recent generation. Which would mean that the top-down universe has some reason to pretend to be bottom-up, at least in some aspects...
Okay, the same argument could be made that quantum physics pretends to be classical physics at larger scale, or relativity pretends to be Newtonian mechanics at low speeds… as if the scientists are trying to make up silly excuses for why their latest magic works but totally “doesn’t contradict” what the previous generations of scientists were telling us...
Well, at least it seems like the bottom-up approach is fruitful, whether the true reason is that the universe is bottom-up, or that the universe it top-down in a way that tries really hard to pretend that it is actually bottom-up (either in the sense that when it generates the—inherently meaningless—details for us, it makes sure that all consequences of those details are compatible with the preexisting Platonic ideas that govern the universe… or like a Dungeon Master who allows the players to invent all kinds of crazy stuff and throw the entire game off balance, because he values consistency above everything).
More importantly, in universe where there is magic all the way up, what sense does it make to adopt the essentially half-assed approach, where you believe in the supernatural but also kinda use logic except not too seriously… might as well throw the logic away completely, because in that kind of universe it is not going to do you much good anyway.
The basic claim of a top down universe is a short string that doesn’t contain much information. About the same amount as a basic claim of reductionism.
The top down claim doesnt imply a universe of immutable physical law, but it doesn’t contradict it either.
The same goes for the bottom-up claim. A universe of randomly moving high entropy gas is useless for science and technology, but compatible with reductionism.
But all this is rather beside the point. Even if supernaturalism is indefensible, you can’t refute it by changing it into something else.
Feels like in the top-down universe, science shouldn’t work at all. I mean, when you take a magnifying glass and look at the details, they are supposedly generated on the fly to fit the larger picture. Then you apply munchkinry to the details and invent an atomic bomb or quantum computer… which means… what exactly, from the top-down perspective?
Yeah, you can find an excuse, e.g. that some of those top-down principles are hidden like Easter eggs, waiting to be discovered later. That the Platonic idea of smartphones has been waiting for us since the creation of the universe, but was only revealed to the recent generation. Which would mean that the top-down universe has some reason to pretend to be bottom-up, at least in some aspects...
Okay, the same argument could be made that quantum physics pretends to be classical physics at larger scale, or relativity pretends to be Newtonian mechanics at low speeds… as if the scientists are trying to make up silly excuses for why their latest magic works but totally “doesn’t contradict” what the previous generations of scientists were telling us...
Well, at least it seems like the bottom-up approach is fruitful, whether the true reason is that the universe is bottom-up, or that the universe it top-down in a way that tries really hard to pretend that it is actually bottom-up (either in the sense that when it generates the—inherently meaningless—details for us, it makes sure that all consequences of those details are compatible with the preexisting Platonic ideas that govern the universe… or like a Dungeon Master who allows the players to invent all kinds of crazy stuff and throw the entire game off balance, because he values consistency above everything).
More importantly, in universe where there is magic all the way up, what sense does it make to adopt the essentially half-assed approach, where you believe in the supernatural but also kinda use logic except not too seriously… might as well throw the logic away completely, because in that kind of universe it is not going to do you much good anyway.
The basic claim of a top down universe is a short string that doesn’t contain much information. About the same amount as a basic claim of reductionism.
The top down claim doesnt imply a universe of immutable physical law, but it doesn’t contradict it either.
The same goes for the bottom-up claim. A universe of randomly moving high entropy gas is useless for science and technology, but compatible with reductionism.
But all this is rather beside the point. Even if supernaturalism is indefensible, you can’t refute it by changing it into something else.