tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post2875002751040219533..comments2023-09-11T01:18:18.763-07:00Comments on Natural Right and Biology: Physical Reductionism, Greedy & GenerousKen Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580209017016829598noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post-89744030387385387782013-04-19T20:17:23.235-07:002013-04-19T20:17:23.235-07:00K: I remain very dubious about the reduction of th...K: I remain very dubious about the reduction of the ball to quantum phenomena. It seems to me unlikely the quantum state(s) of any particle can be responsible for the shape of the ball. The shape of the ball is a property of a very large collection of quantum operations. It might be possible to include those operations in a description of the ball though, as we agree, there are practical limitations. It just seems to me that a complete description has to include features that belong to the whole rather than the parts. Ken Blanchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09580209017016829598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post-21060243418741437732013-04-19T06:49:03.276-07:002013-04-19T06:49:03.276-07:00"the flight of a lively ball is irreducible t..."the flight of a lively ball is irreducible to the molecular level": this is far (by any standard) conensual in the fields of physics. It is actually a very debated topic tightly connected to the concept of "Quantum coherence" and "Wave Function Collapse" (see wikipedia). Some interpretations of quantum physics, indeed would argue that macroscopic phenomena (the flight of a ball) may indeed not be *in practice* reducible to quantum operations (e.g., because of the limited computational tools at our disposal) but they still *ARE* in essence a quantum phenomenon. <br /><br />Just for your knowledge.kndiaye01@yahoo.frnoreply@blogger.com