picklepuss

As I understand it, 'emergence' is simply stating that in any dynamic interaction between two or more entities, a third entity arises (emerges). That third, or novel, entity now possesses 'properties', (aka 'qualities'), not possessed by any of the interacting entities. That the new, original entity which exhibits these novel properties/qualities is called a 'whole', while the interacting entities, each with their own properties, are now described as 'parts'. So the term 'emergence' simply means that in certain dynamic entities, such as some molecules, etc., etc., the 'whole' is *qualitatively* different from any and all of its 'parts'. That is, it is "greater than their sum (of properties)". Quantitative explanations are insufficient, since measurement is non-explanatory. Hence laws and explanations based upon 'extension', that is, 'mass in motion',
are inapplicable.

To me that suggests that the 'four forces' are insufficient to explain 'emergence', that is, the creation of novelty and originality within the universe. Therefore either some other 'fifth' force or power must be posited, or originality and novelty must be denied. If they are denied, then their apparent reality must be dismissed as merely 'epiphenomenal', a 'magic word' that tells us nothing about phenomenal causation.

I would rather accept the prima facie reality of of 'emergent properties', that is, of novelty and originality in actual entities, than try to make them disappear by sweeping them under the mechanistic rug of 'epiphenomena'. If that means searching for and identifying a 'fifth force' for causing change, one that creates novel entities with novel properties, rather than merely extending or contracting old ones, (that is, finding a force or power that does more than simply put 'mass in motion'), then so be it.

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

And yet, you can choose whether you want to sit your particular system of particles down in front of the computer to argue with me, or to give it up, and take them off to the pub instead.

How does your extremely reductionist view account for the existence of emergent properties?

What good is knowing the initial conditions of a system, when you can't use them to predict the emergent properties of that system?

But you can't predict chaotic properties by simply by calculating the positions of particles. That's the whole point. You can only see whether a system is stable or chaotic in hindsight. So the deterministic philosophical viewpoint that says "the whole future is set in concrete" is unsupportable.

Remember the definition of determinism I gave above? If you can't tell how a system will evolve from the initial conditions and the laws of nature, then determinism fails. If you have to model a system to see how it will evolve, then it is not predictable, and determinism fails.

That is the only real point I ever wanted to make here.

What is truly absurd is dismissing an entire branch of science and all its empirical findings, because it doesn't agree with a particularly extreme form of reductionistic determinism that most people gave up on at least a century ago (because it doesn't agree with observation).

Understanding complex systems is not trivial, no matter how much you attempt to trivialize it. Your repeated attempts to trivialize emergent properties as "stuff happens" is willfully perverse.

Bullshit.

This is about complexity, it has nothing to do with force laws.

The operators of mathematics are all "merely human labels". The constants of physics are all "merely human labels". Scientific theories are full of "merely human labels". Do you dismiss those as trivial? Of course you don't, because all of these "merely human labels" represent stable and repeatable observations made by us mere human beings. The trouble you seem to have is that you want to accept all the "merely human labels" you class as "physics" (another merely human label) and trivialize everything else. I am not inclined to do so. I will not be a pick-and-choose empiricist in the same way that some Christians are pick-and-choose biblical inerrantists.

And here we come to the nub of the matter. In this statement you make claims for your "deterministic natural laws" that go far and beyond anything that any philosopher of science would ever stake his reputation on.

No mechanical or electrical device I have ever used is anything other than the product of engineering and empirical observation.

The "absolute, deterministic natural laws" you are so fond of are nothing more than mathematical models of empirical observations. And any one of them could be overturned by new empirical data that supported a different model.

I paraphrased Richard Feynman in an earlier post. Just to underline my point, I will now quote him in full.

In short, science is empirical, not absolute.

Feather

I never claimed I "choose" to sit here typing at a computer screen. That's an assertion you made.

I'd have to agree that "emergent property" is a term that has any sort of significance for the first question to make any sense, first.

If we know the initial conditions and the interaction laws, then every position every particle in the system will ever take will be known. Calling a given configuration of positions of the particles an "emergent property" doesn't change this.


So knowing the state of the particles in a system at any given time isn't the same as knowing every physically meaningful observable. Gee, and all these gadgets we have are based on just such a concept. Oh well. I guess all this technology you use every day doesn't really exist.

This is just laughably absurd. The whole scientific view (which, I might add, is by far the most successful philosophical system ever for understanding the way nature is) is based on the formulation of models of nature. It's the best we can do without throwing our hands up in the air and saying, "Well, nature (god, whatever) did it."

What branch of science? Quantum Theory and chaos as applied to mechanical systems? I'm quite well aware of both, and dismiss neither--labs are required course work, after all. Neither affirms non-determinism.

I'm not trying to trivialize anything. Concepts in nature are ultimately not very complex, in principle. In practice, this is another matter. I will not deny that, because it would be foolish, as you say.

But "complex" and "simple" are human notions. Neither of which is necessarily intrinsic to nature. Calling a property "complex" or "emergent" is a human label. This doesn't imply the property is predictable, determined, "chaotic," or anything else. As you are fond of noting, the obsevations "determine" this.

Perhaps you misread my statement. I understand that all our models of reality are "merely human concepts." I didn't dismiss the "merely human label" of "emergent property" and arbitrarily keep others (such as "gravity") on a whim. If were of the mind to only accept concepts I liked and dismissed others, I'd never believe or accept General Relativity or Republicans' existance. But I can't do this, because the evidence exists to back it up.

As for evidence for "emergent properties," all you've done is assert over and over again that "emergent properties" exist because "I say so."

You've given a couple of examples of "emergent properties:" life and the weather. How exactly is it that these are "emergent properties?" Are you implying it's not possible to predict "life" or the "weather" given that particles interact? How so? Both exist, at least by observation; why assume that either is the result of something more than observation?

Let me put it another way: your statement that "weather is an emergent property" is, to me, entirely synonmous with a shorthand way of saying, "the particles and force fields that compose the atmosphere of the planet move in such a way to produce a certain kind of pattern, but other particles that compose other systems, such as my coffee mug, do not; therefore there must be some significant difference between the particles and force fields of the planet's atmosphere and those of the other systems." Other than the trivial difference that one behaves one way and the other the other, what is there?

How exactly is "empirical" equivalent to "indeterminate?"

I never claimed that our models make us all-knowing. Not by any stretch of your imagination. And it is borne of your imagination, I'm afraid.

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Feather ]</p>