2 ms·
This goes against the idea of strong emergence (mainly the bottom up causation part). I’m not arguing for or against it, but the SEP has an entry about it https
by meroes 5y ago
This goes against the idea of strong emergence (mainly the bottom up causation part). I’m not arguing for or against it, but the SEP has an entry about it https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/
“This often takes the form of rejecting physical realization, affirming fundamental higher-level causal powers, or both.”
I find it fascinating to wonder about causal powers in multiple directions. Does it even make sense? Does it conflict with physicalism? What is the physical anymore? Chomsky says there is no physical for the past few hundred years. It’s worth reading about at least.
- guerrilla 5y ago> multiple directions. [...] Does it conflict with physicalism? Since you like SEP, "Backward Causation"[1] is sometimes attempted as an explanation for entanglement. I don't buy it but it could be related to your question. 1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/