I see reductionism as “everything is made out of the same stuff, and that stuff invariably obeys mathematical regularities.” If, millenia ago, it had turned out that everything really was made of earth, water, fire, and air; that they were ontologically basic and that you could analyze other substances by breaking them into the four elements or combine the four to create new ones; I would still call that reductionism.
I had hoped it was clear that I knew at least that much already (the “same stuff” being quantum amplitude). This doesn’t help resolve ontological questions about quantum amplitude though. I’m asking for reductionism applied to our best state of the art under standing of physics.
See the comment above for a hopefully more clarified restatement of the question.
I see reductionism as “everything is made out of the same stuff, and that stuff invariably obeys mathematical regularities.” If, millenia ago, it had turned out that everything really was made of earth, water, fire, and air; that they were ontologically basic and that you could analyze other substances by breaking them into the four elements or combine the four to create new ones; I would still call that reductionism.
I had hoped it was clear that I knew at least that much already (the “same stuff” being quantum amplitude). This doesn’t help resolve ontological questions about quantum amplitude though. I’m asking for reductionism applied to our best state of the art under standing of physics.
See the comment above for a hopefully more clarified restatement of the question.