Page 5 of 11

### Re: There cannot be any emergence

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:30 pm
No problemo.
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:26 pm Setup: Consider a thing which is made of some irreducible parts
There is no such thing.

All thing-parts of things are reducible.

### Re: There cannot be any emergence

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:38 pm
Walker wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:30 pm There is no such thing.

All thing-parts of things are reducible.
Turtles all the way down!

But same thing applies. If you think quarks and leptons are reducible - please demonstrate.

### Re: There cannot be any emergence

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:47 pm
Walker wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:30 pm No problemo.
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:26 pm Setup: Consider a thing which is made of some irreducible parts
There is no such thing.

All thing-parts of things are reducible.
Then you cannot have anything.

### Re: There cannot be any emergence

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:00 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:47 pm
Walker wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:30 pm No problemo.
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:26 pm Setup: Consider a thing which is made of some irreducible parts
There is no such thing.

All thing-parts of things are reducible.
Then you cannot have anything.
Any thing ... with inherent identity.

### Re: There cannot be any emergence

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:01 pm
Walker wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:00 pm Any thing ... with inherent identity.
Quarks have identity. Reduce them for us.

### Re: There cannot be any emergence

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:08 pm
Oh really.

You're still deflecting.

Reduce an abstract?

Meh.

### Re: There cannot be any emergence

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:10 pm
Walker wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:08 pm Oh really.

You're still deflecting.

Reduce an abstract?

Meh.
Quarks are abstract now?

And I think you have it backwards. That which is irreducible cannot be abstract.

### Re: There cannot be any emergence

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:09 am
You're confusing yourself.
Logik wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:47 pmMolecules are abstract. Reducing molecules to their parts gives you atoms.
Atoms are abstract. Reducing atoms to their parts gives you leptons and quarks.

Leptons and quarks may be abstract too, but to claim that they are reducible you need to demonstrate a reduction.
Will space take me further than Feynman?

"My guess is that [black hole singularities] are quite a lot smaller than a quark, but I don't believe they're of infinite density," Parker told LiveScience. "Most likely they are maybe a million million times or even more than that smaller than the distances we've seen so far."
- Andy Parker

https://www.space.com/17629-smallest-in ... ysics.html

People once thought grains of sand were the building blocks of what we see around us. Then the atom was discovered, and it was thought indivisible, until it was split to reveal protons, neutrons and electrons inside. These too, seemed like fundamental particles, before scientists discovered that protons and neutrons are made of three quarks each.

"This time we haven't been able to see any evidence at all that there's anything inside quarks," said physicist Andy Parker. "Have we reached the most fundamental layer of matter?"

### Re: There cannot be any emergence

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:32 am
Walker wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:09 am People once thought grains of sand were the building blocks of what we see around us. Then the atom was discovered, and it was thought indivisible, until it was split to reveal protons, neutrons and electrons inside. These too, seemed like fundamental particles, before scientists discovered that protons and neutrons are made of three quarks each.

"This time we haven't been able to see any evidence at all that there's anything inside quarks," said physicist Andy Parker. "Have we reached the most fundamental layer of matter?"[/i]
Isn't that what I am saying? Quarks are thought to be irreducible. For now.

If you think they are reducible - demonstrate.

### Re: There cannot be any emergence

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:13 am
bahman wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:46 am
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:26 pm Setup: Consider a thing which is made of some irreducible parts
Definition: Emergence means that the thing is more than the parts

1) The behavior of the thing is the result of behavior of the parts
2) This means that there is a function which relates the behavior of the thing to the behavior of the parts
3) Therefore there is no emergence since the thing can be explained in terms of the parts
There is no such thing as emergence-by-itself and totally independent of anything.
Emergence is always associated with the human self.

When you see and feel a 'real' solid table, that is an emergence of sort.

To a fly the table is merely pieces of 'wood' or whatever fly-thing as cognize by the fly.
To a blind bat, the table is merely a cluster of echoed radar waves.
To a virus of a size of a molecules, the virus will cognize only molecules of
• 50% carbon, 42% oxygen, 6% hydrogen, 1% nitrogen, and 1% other elements (mainly calcium, potassium, sodium, magnesium, iron, and manganese) by weight.
-wiki
Thus whatever is reality to human beings is an emergence that is conditioned upon the human self.
What you are missing is that the whole changes in the examples you provided.
What is that "whole" that is changing.
The molecule size virus cannot view the 'whole' table.
Therefore there is no 'whole table' that is independent by itself except as conditioned by the human self.
If 'emergence' is confined to a "whole" from the human perspective it has to be conditioned by the human self.

Thus my point;
..whatever is reality to human beings is an emergence that is conditioned upon the human self.

### Re: There cannot be any emergence

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:16 am
bahman wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:02 pm
Logik wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:23 am
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:26 pm 1) The behavior of the thing is the result of behavior of the parts
2) This means that there is a function which relates the behavior of the thing to the behavior of the parts
3) Therefore there is no emergence since the thing can be explained in terms of the parts
Behavior in what context? Salt ( NaCl) at the molecular level has no particular "behavior" unless it interacts with other things.

The taste of salt cannot be explained by the behaviour of Sodium and Chlorine.
Fundamentally - it can't be explained because salt has no such property as 'taste'.

"Taste" is an emergent property of the resultant chemical reaction between NaCl and your taste receptors.
You need a human and salt in the case you want to see what is the taste of salt. So the whole is human and salt.
That was my point;

It not only with 'taste' [senses] it is the same with the full range of cognition of all of reality, i.e.
..whatever is reality to human beings is an emergence that is conditioned upon the human self.

### Re: There cannot be any emergence

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:29 am
bahman wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:02 pm You need a human and salt in the case you want to see what is the taste of salt. So the whole is human and salt.
Having another human is of absolutely no use to me. Being told that it "tastes like salt" doesn't convey the actual taste if I have never tasted salt before.

So I don't need a human. All I need is to lick the salt.

### Re: There cannot be any emergence

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:01 pm
Walker wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:56 am
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:26 pm Setup: Consider a thing which is made of some irreducible parts
There is no such thing.
That's why Bahman said, "consider". It does not have to be real or true; but for the sake of argument the parties partaking in the argument-party assume it's true.

Logik talked about this earlier, I believe, and he named it something. It's quite common in philosophical circles to "consider". It means you don't have to accept it as true, but you can argue pro or con as if it were true.

I, for instance, argue in religious / theist threads as if there were a god, which I believe is a false belief. But I can, for the argument's sake, argue AS IF I had believed there were a god.

There is a neat name for this maneuver, and Logic recalled that name, but I can't find it now. To be honest, I'm not even looking for it.

### Re: There cannot be any emergence

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:08 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:13 am
bahman wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:46 am
There is no such thing as emergence-by-itself and totally independent of anything.
Emergence is always associated with the human self.

When you see and feel a 'real' solid table, that is an emergence of sort.

To a fly the table is merely pieces of 'wood' or whatever fly-thing as cognize by the fly.
To a blind bat, the table is merely a cluster of echoed radar waves.
To a virus of a size of a molecules, the virus will cognize only molecules of
• 50% carbon, 42% oxygen, 6% hydrogen, 1% nitrogen, and 1% other elements (mainly calcium, potassium, sodium, magnesium, iron, and manganese) by weight.
-wiki
Thus whatever is reality to human beings is an emergence that is conditioned upon the human self.
What you are missing is that the whole changes in the examples you provided.
What is that "whole" that is changing.
In your first example the whole is me and table.
In your second example the whole is fly and table.
Etc.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:13 am The molecule size virus cannot view the 'whole' table.
Therefore there is no 'whole table' that is independent by itself except as conditioned by the human self.
If 'emergence' is confined to a "whole" from the human perspective it has to be conditioned by the human self.

Thus my point;
..whatever is reality to human beings is an emergence that is conditioned upon the human self.
I think it is matter of how the human self is connected to reality. Regardless, the taste of salt is not an intrinsic property of the molecule. We know that the molecule has two nucleus and some electrons. The properties of these particles are simply charge, mass and spin. To me the properties of the molecule is simply charge, mass and spin too. Non of these properties is similar to salt's taste. So the question is where does the taste of salt come from?

### Re: There cannot be any emergence

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:11 pm
Logik wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:29 am
bahman wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:02 pm You need a human and salt in the case you want to see what is the taste of salt. So the whole is human and salt.
Having another human is of absolutely no use to me. Being told that it "tastes like salt" doesn't convey the actual taste if I have never tasted salt before.

So I don't need a human. All I need is to lick the salt.
So you mean that the taste of salt is an intrinsic property of the molecule? We know that intrinsic properties of the molecule is charge, mass and spin. There is nothing more.