On 7.: even if you were to successfully show that the real world reduces to some lower, possibly more/less complicated, level (as particle physics did, and nuclear physics did, and, well, physics really likes doing...) that next level is still “the real world” just understood in slightly more detail.
Which you can then try and reduce further. (I really hope it’s infinitely complicated :p)
In addition; 1-5 are all aspects of seven. So I’m really not sure what the point you’re trying to make.
1-5 are all aspects of seven. So I’m really not sure what the point you’re trying to make.
We do now regard 1-5 as all being made out of the same stuff that 7 is made out of. But many folks persistently felt that there had to be separate kinds of essences involved in at least some of 1-5. I felt that way for some of them. The point is that I/they were mistaken; and the next point is to ask if there are any other questions about which we may be similarly mistaken or confused.
We do now regard 1-5 as all being made out of the same stuff that 7 is made out of. But many folks persistently felt that there had to be separate kinds of essences involved in at least some of 1-5.
Even before 1-5 were succesfully reduced they were still seen as part of 7.
They were just seen as parts of 7 with different properties to the rest.
Does that make any more sense?
It doesn’t really clarify my main point of confusion, which is what you’re attempting to gain by listing 7 (ie. pretty much everything) as a single thing to be reduced
On 7.: even if you were to successfully show that the real world reduces to some lower, possibly more/less complicated, level (as particle physics did, and nuclear physics did, and, well, physics really likes doing...) that next level is still “the real world” just understood in slightly more detail.
I agree that making particles out of smaller particles wouldn’t make me un-confused about the sense in which there is something rather than nothing.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t some set of concepts and reductions that would make me unconfused. Eliezer has a good description of how such processes can go at Righting a wrong question.
What do you mean by “the sense in which there is something rather than nothing.”?
That seems to imply that there is a sense in which there isn’t anything. But there not being anything is inconsistent with your existence, and by “cogito ergo sum”esque arguments, you can be certain of your own existence.
On 7.: even if you were to successfully show that the real world reduces to some lower, possibly more/less complicated, level (as particle physics did, and nuclear physics did, and, well, physics really likes doing...) that next level is still “the real world” just understood in slightly more detail.
Which you can then try and reduce further. (I really hope it’s infinitely complicated :p)
In addition; 1-5 are all aspects of seven. So I’m really not sure what the point you’re trying to make.
We do now regard 1-5 as all being made out of the same stuff that 7 is made out of. But many folks persistently felt that there had to be separate kinds of essences involved in at least some of 1-5. I felt that way for some of them. The point is that I/they were mistaken; and the next point is to ask if there are any other questions about which we may be similarly mistaken or confused.
Does that make any more sense?
Even before 1-5 were succesfully reduced they were still seen as part of 7.
They were just seen as parts of 7 with different properties to the rest.
It doesn’t really clarify my main point of confusion, which is what you’re attempting to gain by listing 7 (ie. pretty much everything) as a single thing to be reduced
I agree that making particles out of smaller particles wouldn’t make me un-confused about the sense in which there is something rather than nothing.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t some set of concepts and reductions that would make me unconfused. Eliezer has a good description of how such processes can go at Righting a wrong question.
What do you mean by “the sense in which there is something rather than nothing.”?
That seems to imply that there is a sense in which there isn’t anything. But there not being anything is inconsistent with your existence, and by “cogito ergo sum”esque arguments, you can be certain of your own existence.