And yet a whole raft of contemporary scientific thinkers (especially in biology) describe life, consciousness, and volition precisely as "emergent qualities." They may have a basis in the physical; but they are not reducible to the physical. And yes, they are "natural."
I get the sense in reading you, Hank, that you imagine the universe is some kind of "finished product," already complete and thus eminently specifiable to a high degree of certainty. That is, for you, the universe is a steady-state, "closed system," and you are able to observe it in its completeness as if somehow you were standing outside of it, at some Archimedian point outside of universal space and time. And then you've taken a great deal of time and trouble to write out its full specification in doctrinal form, and voila! Now we can know what reality "is," right down to every jot and tittle.
For me -- Platonist realist if you wish to call me such, since you seem to want to classify me -- the universe is evolving; and to the extent that it is comprised of emergent processes occurring in its parts, it ain't finished yet. In that sense, it is not reducible to a simple set of propositional statements. Plus we humans are evolving right along with it, and are the source of at least some of the universe's emergent properties. Further, at no time can we stand outside of the universe of which we are constituting parts, and see the whole thing "finished" in time, complete.
You want to make the finite the measure of a putatively infinite process. In effect, to reduce the universe down to a set of mental propositions that can all live conveniently inside your head. And then you take this description for the reality.
A lot of the "school philosophers" do this sort of thing. But a thinker who is "open" towards being and the truth of reality -- which has not yet been fully manifested -- cannot adopt this strategy. Such a strategy typically results, not in a more complete understanding of the reality we've already got, but in the construction of a Second, or alternative reality.
Which is, in effect, a kind of flight from reality. FWIW.
Thanks for writing, Hank.
I do not regard the universe a product.
And then you've taken a great deal of time and trouble to write out its full specification in doctrinal form, and voila! Now we can know what reality "is," ...
Well yes, exactly. You use the word "reality" all the time. Don't you know what the word means? You must. You wouldn't use a word if you did not know what you meant by it. Now I happen not to agree with what you think it means, in all its fine points, so I take the trouble to make exactly what I mean clear, and suddenly that is some kind of presumptuousness?
In effect, to reduce the universe down to a set of mental propositions that can all live conveniently inside your head. And then you take this description for the reality.
I thought you were the one that claimed the scientist's formulas and "mental propositions" such as fields and "wave functions" were what the universe is reduced to. I don't say that.
You want to make the finite the measure of a putatively infinite process.
No, you are the one that believes the universe can be explained in terms of measurable qualities such as fields and wave functions. I absolutely deny it.
For example, someone said, "from a Platonist view, whether we like it or not, pi exists," but, as a matter of fact there is no such existent. It is only a concept for the relationship of the measurement of the circumference of a circle to its radius, and exists only as a concept. There is no such actual thing, there is not even any actual mathematical value to express it. (If there were, you should have no trouble telling me exactly what it is.)
It is similar to the ratio of the either leg of an isosceles right triangle to the hypotenuse. While we can conceive of such a ratio, there is no such measurable value. There is no mathematical way to represents that ratio. Nevertheless, real isosceles triangles are ubiquitous. (If you would like to see the mathematical proof of this, I would be glad to provide it. It's commonly known.)
I really do appreciate your comments. Your view of things is much more widely held than mine, so I am very interested is seeing how the arguments from you side are actually made.
Hank