Vlad,
That seems a most complex rendering of a ''claim''.
As I quoted its author
verbatim you might want to take that up with him.
You might be the only one making that on behalf of people like myself.
What are you trying to say here? I merely told you what the claim was, and quoted it from the article.
If the fundamentals are basically units that can join together we can predict there will be large number complex arrangements of units and that's about it. we may speculate that these may become repeating or chaotic but I don't see this predicting anything more. Thus anything more than this would have to be eliminatively reduced to what I've previously said for your contention to work.
Try to focus there – the claim is: “
You, your dog, and the specifics of your person-dog affection could not be predicted, even in principle, even from perfect knowledge of all your elementary particles”. Assuming unlimited computing power too, can you see any justification for it? I can’t.
Chomsky observed that the pure sciences become less useful when we move into areas such as sociology, psychology and anthropology. Is the language of say, physics sufficient for ecology or ethology? I would say not.
Relevance? We’re talking about a claim made
even in principle here remember, not in practice.
I don't know who is making that exact claim.
The author of the article you posted a link to in your OP.
Does the claim of reductionism here match other default position claims you have made? I would say not since those have been made in the context of empirical or sense data, here empirical sense such as say wetness seems to be dismissed as at worst illusion and at best merely sensing forces between particles and being somehow hoodwinked by qualia. So it is difficult to justify reductionist here as any kind of default position. Also can you call a philosophy a default position? I'm not sure you can.
You’ve collapsed into gibberish again here. The “default position” (ie, “reductionism" to an empirical model are least in principle) is the default position because the only knowledge hitherto we’ve verifiably and usefully obtained is empirical in character. Thus we start with that model pending any information or method that might invalidate it.
And that’s why what the author calls reductionism should be the default position.