If you read a physics or chemistry textbook, then you’ll find a lot of words and only a few equations, whereas a mathematics textbook has much more equations and the words in the book are to explain the equations, whereas the words in a physics book are not only explaining the equations but the issues that the equations are explaining.
However, I haven’t fully thought about reductionism, so do you have any recommendations that I want to read?
My current two objections:
1. Computational
According to our current physical theories, it is impossible to predict the behaviour of any system larger than a dozen atoms, see Walter Kohn’s Nobel Lecture. We could eventually have a completely new theory, but that would be an optimistic hope.
2. Ontological
Physical objects have other qualities than mathematical objects. And values have other qualities than physical objects. Further elaboration needed.
It shouldn’t, because this is a straw man, not the argument that leads us to conclude that there isn’t a single absolute morality.
It is not a straw man, because I am not attacking any position. I think I was misunderstood, as I said.
If you read a physics or chemistry textbook, then you’ll find a lot of words and only a few equations, whereas a mathematics textbook has much more equations and the words in the book are to explain the equations, whereas the words in a physics book are not only explaining the equations but the issues that the equations are explaining.
However, I haven’t fully thought about reductionism, so do you have any recommendations that I want to read?
My current two objections:
1. Computational
According to our current physical theories, it is impossible to predict the behaviour of any system larger than a dozen atoms, see Walter Kohn’s Nobel Lecture. We could eventually have a completely new theory, but that would be an optimistic hope.
2. Ontological
Physical objects have other qualities than mathematical objects. And values have other qualities than physical objects. Further elaboration needed.
It is not a straw man, because I am not attacking any position. I think I was misunderstood, as I said.