Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member apathist
    looking for loot
    11 Jun '17 20:42
    I;m wondering if those two concepts can actually be separated. Are there reductionists who are not determinists? Are there determinists who are not reductionists?

    To put another way: does reductionism imply determinism, and does determinism imply reductionism?

    From my readings and from discussions, they seem married at the hip, so to speak. But maybe I'm missing something.
  2. 11 Jun '17 21:22
    Originally posted by apathist
    From my readings and from discussions, they seem married at the hip, so to speak. But maybe I'm missing something.
    They are completely different concepts, so yes, you are missing something.

    Something is deterministic, if, and only if, a future state is uniquely attained from a prior state.

    Determinism on the other hand seems to have a variety of meanings, but ultimately they all have to do with the extent to which the universe is deterministic.

    Reductionism on the other hand suggests that the whole is not more than the sum of its parts. But there is no requirement whatsoever that those parts be deterministic.

    I am probably neither with regards to the more common definitions of both terms.
  3. Standard member apathist
    looking for loot
    13 Jun '17 23:57 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    They are completely different concepts, so yes, you are missing something.
    Well, they are both key to the classical understanding of physics, known as the clockwork universe. This universe came from a singularity. Which would be the absolute minimum possible number of entities from which to provide methodological explanations.

    So if determinism is true, then any non-reductive explanations would seem to be simply short-hand descriptions of a necessarily reductive explanation.

    Similarly, since the singularity was the original event, then the next (set of) events followed from it. So if reductionism is true, then any non-deterministic explanations would seem to be simply short-hand descriptions of a necessarily deterministic explanation.

    Btw, I did find someone who wasn't both!
    http://gregstevens.com/2012/09/25/determinism-without-reductionism/

    I thought this was interesting:

    We proposed a very simple model of interpersonal interaction: social separation triggers the production of epinephrine, which in turn suppresses opioid production and increases arousal; social attachment, on the other hand, triggers the production of opioids, which suppresses epinephrine and decreases arousal.

    Absence makes the heart grow fonder, while familiarity breeds contempt!

    Something is deterministic, if, and only if, a future state is uniquely attained from a prior state.
    Determinism on the other hand seems to have a variety of meanings, but ultimately they all have to do with the extent to which the universe is deterministic.

    If you know what deteministic means, then you should know what determinism means. It is the view that all events are necessarily deterministic. It doesn't help btw that the terms are somewhat interchangable: a deterministic event can be considered to be an event according to determinisim.

    I am probably neither with regards to the more common definitions of both terms.
    I know. You're a semanticist, one who believes that reality must conform to definitions.