Flavio,
I thank you for your philosophical views. Such things do interest me.
My main point is that while you argue (very articulately) against reductionism -as a philosophy- the main proponents of such activities, meaning fellow particle theorists, aren't actually practicing it. Thus any aversion to a 'haughty' philosophical attitude toward other "approaches" which work well (perhaps better in some physical sciences) is SHARED. To be sure, any such philosophy is not well-founded, as the quantum state algebra 'averages out' long before one reaches a macroscopic scale.
In reality only the preon algebra is a _mathematical_ reduction from QCD. Few pursue this simplifying 'reductionist' algebra (notably Kaufmann, Smolin, Bilson-Thompson and Markopoulou). I of course learned of this studying combinatorial algebra, and have never really pursued the subject due to its being considered "reductionist".
Perhaps I am distinguishing between the sub-classes of "reductionism" which you cite. The subject is rather new look at things, although clearly I favor mathematical reductionism. I ascribe to the approach that a theory well-founded in mathematical formalism, as WELL AS equally non-disproven by experimental observations, both particle and astrophysical, exists.
The hard question then becomes 'what is the observable difference?', but that is certainly not a topic for this forum.
As one looks to enumerating the aspects of a theory which are fundamental, well, that is a topic for this forum. In fact several essays attempt address this issue. I wrote my essay to address that, as well as show mathematical examples which pass the requisite fundamental criteria.
{Noting again that causality is chief among them, which btw does not auger well for most attempts at finding a 'better' particle theory}
In fact, I would more clearly categorize my work, if you must, as "Constructivist".
The main thrust of the essay was to show a "mathematical architecture" exists which meets all the criteria for representing 'What is "that which is" fundamental." Thus I emphasize the many connections to well-known theoretical work. As do several other essays, all of whom I hope would be of interest to you. After all, I doubt that they would recognize many of the traits of (the broader meaning of reductionism) in their work.
Any of my comments about the FQXi RoE are merely an aside brought to mind by my effort to understand how 'purely philosophical thinking about approaches taken to address fundamental questions' mix with 'current questions actually being addressed by insights into' the same problem. Their scoring system includes both in some proportion. This has zero to do with you, but I did, after all, once ask them to return to more fundamental questions. I tend to favor that aspect of the conversation but attempted, badly, to explain my concerns about how your perceptive academic view tends to (distract or detract from??) much good valid work due to a categorization issue. No matter, and forgive me any inappropriate asides.
I really appreciate your point of view and plan to continue reading many others, and build the FQXi community, because I find it to be a rather interesting venue for discussions with peers. ...in hopes of it being productive in terms of collaborative thinking.
Best regards,
Wayne
