Comments on: The 2009 Edge Question http://davidgalbraith.org/uncategorized/the-2009-edge-question/1553/ Just another WordPress weblog Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:35:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Paul http://davidgalbraith.org/uncategorized/the-2009-edge-question/1553/comment-page-1/#comment-5356 Paul Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:29:44 +0000 http://davidgalbraith.org/?p=1553#comment-5356 Kauffman's piece was certainly interesting, though I think it's wrong. At issue: he mistakenly treats the predictability/entailment of phenomena given a set of physical laws as necessary for those laws to bind the phenomena. There are people who subscribe to this account of reductionism, but they're a dying breed as physics comes to look increasingly indeterministic. I wrote a little bit about this here: http://www.caritj.org/2009/02/04/scientific-laws-bind-without-entailing/#more-35 (inspired me to start a blog, in fact) Kauffman’s piece was certainly interesting, though I think it’s wrong. At issue: he mistakenly treats the predictability/entailment of phenomena given a set of physical laws as necessary for those laws to bind the phenomena. There are people who subscribe to this account of reductionism, but they’re a dying breed as physics comes to look increasingly indeterministic. I wrote a little bit about this here: http://www.caritj.org/2009/02/04/scientific-laws-bind-without-entailing/#more-35

(inspired me to start a blog, in fact)

]]>