[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

[david buchanan]

Case said:
Emergence has been discussed here at length. Polanyi mentions the example of 
the rules of chess. They are enabled by but can not be predicted by or 
reduced to the laws of physics and biology. The activities of Life emerge 
from the laws of physics but at some point begin to play by their own rules. 
This is the point Pirsig makes in constructing his levels. ..I am suggesting 
that emergence and reduction are opposite sides of the same coin.

dmb says:
Opposite sides of the same coin? This sort of logically fallacy probably has 
a Latin name. I mean, if emergence says that the rules of chess can't "be 
predicted by or reduced to" the levels that enable them, then reduction is 
not the flip side of emergence. It simply defies the meaning of emergence. 
Reduction simply ignores the notion that these levels "play by their own 
rules". Reductionism would claim that playing chess could be explained in 
terms of physics or biology and so contradicts emergence. And this is a 
pretty neat little why of explaining why the MOQ is incompatible with 
reductionism. As you rightly point out, the levels are based on the notion 
that there are different sets of rules and that confusion results when we 
fail to take these differences into account. I am suggesting that 
reductionism is confused and fails for exactly that reason.

_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page 
www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701