Weak scientific reductionist: c) concepts and theories in chemistry and biology are only useful high level approximations to physical models of the universe. They could be reduced to physical theories if b) does not apply.
They could be reduced to physical theories if b) does not apply.
I find this confusing. Is this another condition or is this clarification? And I’m uncertain what you mean by “physical theories” in this context.
EDIT: It appears to me that 4.a implies 4.b, and that 4.b and 4.c are simply clarifications of 4.a. If this is the case perhaps we could just drop the controversial 4.c?
I struggled to understand your original descriptions, so I rephrased them. Does this capture your categorization?
Strong ontological reductionist:
a) everything can be reduced to a mathematical object in a mathematical realm
b) nothing exists outside the mathematical realm
Weak ontological reductionist:
a) mental phenomena are entirely physical in nature
b) everything does not necessarily reduce to mathematical objects in a mathematical realm
Strong scientific reductionist:
a) the behavior of the universe is fundamentally deterministic
Weak scientific reductionist:
a) the behavior of the universe is fundamentally probabilistic
b) it is impossible to predict specific outcomes in quantum level systems
c) concepts and theories in chemistry and biology are useful high level approximations of the fundamentally probabilistic universe
Thanks for the rephrasing. I would amend:
Weak scientific reductionist:
c) concepts and theories in chemistry and biology are only useful high level approximations to physical models of the universe. They could be reduced to physical theories if b) does not apply.
I find this confusing. Is this another condition or is this clarification? And I’m uncertain what you mean by “physical theories” in this context.
EDIT: It appears to me that 4.a implies 4.b, and that 4.b and 4.c are simply clarifications of 4.a. If this is the case perhaps we could just drop the controversial 4.c?