What do we mean when we call something “reductionistic”


M: My perception is that Kiran is actually talking here about the “the causality principle”, and his implication appears to be that the standard scientific (=the mechanistic and reductionist) causality principle (i.e. the Cartesian analytic method) is not applicable here. Did I get it right?

K: As far as I know Descartes did not invent the “causality principle” it is as old as humanity. But there are several assumptions about “Causality” that are common but not justified, and that have limited our view for centuries. First cause and effect have not necessarily be ordered by the dimension of time. Second the cause for a material or energetic change does not necessarily have to be matter or energy but can be information or consciousness. Third there it is only an assumption that a matter or energy change requires a physical/direct/local contact of either energy or.

K: But the main mistake that turns an explanation/theory into a “mechanistic and reductionist” one is not that it follows one of the above 3 non-proven assumption but the idea that any ONE thing could be called a “Cause”. In a holistic world view “Everything is connected with Everything” and therefore even calling a limited number of facts a “Cause” is not appropriate , as ALL is a consequence of ALL. Mathematically speaking the modeling of the Cause-Space has to be a Hilbert-Space that allows to relate an infinite number of causes to an effect….please see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space.


About Author

Inergetix, Inc. founder and chief scientist.

Comments are closed.