Quantum Biology and the Puzzle of Coherence

[tama]

3. Straight to the point

of what is at stake: standard notions of causality and reductionism in terms of classical physics. Thanks for that!

Of course those are just certain philosophical/metaphysical premisses of theory-building (and in many cases belief systems of "scientism" with various degrees of emotional attachment), and ideals of rational inquiry and empirical method demand that also premisses need to be questioned and restated along the scientific progress.

There is no a priori reason to presuppose only linear unidirectional causality and/or arrow of time. And there are many good reasons not to, for example and especially 'self-reflection', a form that seems unexplainable by mathematical models that reductionistic determinism is based on. And, as allready Hume said, linear causality cannot be proven empirically or logically. It is just one notion of basic order among many possible. And, given the long tradition of dialectics in various cultures and philosophical schools, there is no reason to presuppose that dialectical relation between both "bottom-up" and "top-down"* couldn't be a more coherent foundation of notions of causality and theory building.

So the question is, why do you claim that it would be a "big mistake for anybody to assign any top-down causality."? That is a very strong claim and you back it up with nothing, except perhaps the classic ad hoc word salad woo-word of "emergentism".

***

Presumed reference for 'top-down':
*http://humbleapproach.templeton.org/Top_Down_Causation/