View Single Post
  #26  
Old 13.01.2021, 12:59
amogles's Avatar
amogles amogles is online now
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,076
Groaned at 240 Times in 203 Posts
Thanked 23,251 Times in 9,885 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Not everything is a full continuum - for example, consciousness is viewed as having a minimum level of complexity to be accepted as such. There's a debate about where that line should be drawn, but no scientists would include a rock and I don't think they are tiptoeing around.
But isn't this more or less artificially constructing a definition?

Most phenomena in nature are independent of scale. Thus oscillations for example are not limited to acoustics but there are oscillating systems in geology or astronomy for example that take millions of years to complete one cycle. But we would never say the science there is different, or that the laws of science flip or cease to apply at some arbitrary cut off point.

When scientists say, anything beyond this line we're not looking at, they're just saying, we don't want this to get too complicated, or this is not relevant to the purpose of our investigation. They're not saying, this doesn't exist.

Or at least they shouldn't be.
Reply With Quote