There is no emergence

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by seeds »

bahman wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 11:22 pm Let me tell you what is weak and strong emergence: The properties of the system are functions of the properties of parts in weak emergence whereas there is no relation between the properties of the system and the properties of parts in strong emergence...
Good grief, bahman, that's precisely why it's called "strong emergence," because what emerges from the parts is something "wholly other" than what the parts can account for.

For example, the accessible and measurable components of this moist glob of matter...

Image

...cannot account for the existence of the inaccessible and un-measurable phenomenon of the self-aware "agent" (or "I Am-ness") that not only sits at the throne of a human mind, but also possesses control over an infinitely malleable matrix of mental imaging energy that the agent can willfully grasp and shape into absolutely anything that the agent (with its unshackled "free-will") personally desires.

Of which strong emergence implies is not driven by (or traceable to) any correlative or mechanistic exchanges taking place between the brain's component parts.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the component features of, again, this moist glob of matter...

Image

...that can explain what it is that "experiences" the qualia of the taste of a banana, or the smell and color of a rose.

Again, the (un-measurable) "I Am-ness" of the human consciousness, along with its accompanying "arena" called a mind, are something "wholly other" than what the (measurable) components of this moist glob of matter...

Image

...can account for.

And that is at least one clear example of what the concept of "strong emergence" is all about.
_______
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman »

seeds wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 5:06 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 11:22 pm Let me tell you what is weak and strong emergence: The properties of the system are functions of the properties of parts in weak emergence whereas there is no relation between the properties of the system and the properties of parts in strong emergence...
Good grief, bahman, that's precisely why it's called "strong emergence," because what emerges from the parts is something "wholly other" than what the parts can account for.

For example, the accessible and measurable components of this moist glob of matter...

Image

...cannot account for the existence of the inaccessible and un-measurable phenomenon of the self-aware "agent" (or "I Am-ness") that not only sits at the throne of a human mind, but also possesses control over an infinitely malleable matrix of mental imaging energy that the agent can willfully grasp and shape into absolutely anything that the agent (with its unshackled "free-will") personally desires.

Of which strong emergence implies is not driven by (or traceable to) any correlative or mechanistic exchanges taking place between the brain's component parts.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the component features of, again, this moist glob of matter...

Image

...that can explain what it is that "experiences" the qualia of the taste of a banana, or the smell and color of a rose.

Again, the (un-measurable) "I Am-ness" of the human consciousness, along with its accompanying "arena" called a mind, are something "wholly other" than what the (measurable) components of this moist glob of matter...

Image

...can account for.

And that is at least one clear example of what the concept of "strong emergence" is all about.
_______
But I already argued against strong emergence in OP. Moreover, the existence of phenomena such as free will, consciousness, etc. does not mean that we necessarily are dealing with strong emergence. There are other models of mind such as dualism in which there are two substances qualia and mind, mind is an irreducible substance with abilities to experience, freely decide, and cause.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Flannel Jesus »

bahman wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 3:51 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 8:16 am Basically, I think right now I can say these things:

You think Strong Emergence and the concept of 'source code of the universe' are fundamentally incompatible,

Whereas I think Strong Emergence is explicitly a statement ABOUT the source code of the universe -- namely, that the source code of the universe makes reference to, and gives some sort of causal power to, higher level objects.
Again you cannot have the higher causal level in place when the system is functioning under the lower causal level because of tension between two causal powers.
But I just described how you could. It's literally programmable. I could program what I've suggested, and ... then what? Would that prove to you that you could do it?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:18 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 3:51 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 8:16 am Basically, I think right now I can say these things:

You think Strong Emergence and the concept of 'source code of the universe' are fundamentally incompatible,

Whereas I think Strong Emergence is explicitly a statement ABOUT the source code of the universe -- namely, that the source code of the universe makes reference to, and gives some sort of causal power to, higher level objects.
Again you cannot have the higher causal level in place when the system is functioning under the lower causal level because of tension between two causal powers.
But I just described how you could. It's literally programmable. I could program what I've suggested, and ... then what? Would that prove to you that you could do it?
You can say that in theory, I am wondering how can you program it but let's assume that you can program it for sake of discussion. It is however impossible that your code functions since higher-level code wants to take the system from one state of affair to another one, let's say x to y, and lower-level code wants to take the system from one state of affair to another one, let's say x to z. Since the system in the next time step cannot be in both y and z states then there is tension in your program so your program won't function.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Flannel Jesus »

The point of strong emergence is that the code governing high level stuff overrides low level stuff. The low level code gives precedence to the high level code.

I've literally programmed conway's game of life myself before. Every tick, you calculate the next state of each cell based on it's local rules. If I wanted to program it the way I've described, then I'd program the local low level rules first, and then I'd program a high level rule to check if a high level configuration is present, decide the next state of the pixels involved in the high level configuration based on the high level rule, and set a flag on the pixels to not calculate this next tick based on their low level rules. It's fairly straight forward to implement this sort of thing - the hardest part would only be in detecting the high level pattern, but the principle of having one rule run first and override another rule for certain pixels is trivial.

This "tension" you speak of is just an abstract concept that you're placing on the system - programs like this don't have 'tension', they just have rules that they follow.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 10:11 pm The point of strong emergence is that the code governing high level stuff overrides low level stuff. The low level code gives precedence to the high level code.

I've literally programmed conway's game of life myself before. Every tick, you calculate the next state of each cell based on it's local rules. If I wanted to program it the way I've described, then I'd program the local low level rules first, and then I'd program a high level rule to check if a high level configuration is present, decide the next state of the pixels involved in the high level configuration based on the high level rule, and set a flag on the pixels to not calculate this next tick based on their low level rules. It's fairly straight forward to implement this sort of thing - the hardest part would only be in detecting the high level pattern, but the principle of having one rule run first and override another rule for certain pixels is trivial.

This "tension" you speak of is just an abstract concept that you're placing on the system - programs like this don't have 'tension', they just have rules that they follow.
I understand what you are saying and you can do that in your program but that is not how real life works. In reality, high-level code even if it exists cannot override low-level code. Low-level code is the laws of nature! So the tension that I am talking about is unavoidable.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Flannel Jesus »

but that is not how real life works
I agree
In reality, high-level code even if it exists cannot override low-level code. Low-level code is the laws of nature! So the tension that I am talking about is unavoidable.
But not for this reason, this is just begging the question.

It's totally in principle possible for a universe to exist where there is high level code, and it does override low level code. I don't see any reason to believe that's not possible, you're just insisiting that it's not, even despite acknowledging that I'm capable of programming a world where it does happen. If I can program it, then surely you must agree that it's in principle possible in some world.

The reason it's not possible in this world, in my opinion, is because the principle of locality is much more fundamental in this world than in Conway's Game of Life.

You see, in Conway's Game of Life, the base rules are fully local - the only rules governing what a single pixel will do next are all based on the state of neighboring pixels, so the only hard causes of anything in Conway's are entirely and completely local. BUT as we've discussed, it is totally possible to change Conway's programmiong slightly to introduce non-locality. Even as a simpler example, just imagine that I added in a stipulation that a pixel 20 pixels up and to the left may ALSO affect the pixels next state -- that would be easy to code, *not* an example of strong emergence but still non-local, and wouldn't require any sort of large scale overhaul of the basic logic of Conway's Game -- not an overhaul, just an extra rule to code in.

However, in our universe, we have an Einstein, and in our Universe, our Einstein seems to have proven Relativity, specifically for the case of this conversation, Relativity of Simultaneity. So while in Conway's game we can ask a question like "what is the state of a pixel 20 pixels up and to the left right now?", in our world, anything sufficiently far away from another thing, you cannot objectively ask the question "What is the state of that thing right now?" "Right Now" isn't an objective global thing in our world like it is in Conway's Game.

Locality in physics seems to have been a long-standing preference - something that physicists thought was probably true, but didn't have any proof, but it was more based on what they thought would be mathematically beautiful, which is to some a compelling reason to believe something but not necessarily to everyone. But the advent of Relativity, in my view, made locality no longer just a matter of mathematical beauty but a complete requirement. If Relativity is true, Locality must also be true. And if locality is true, that means that the source code of the universe CANNOT ask questions analogous to "what is the state of a pixel 20 pixels up and to the left right now?". That question isn't allowed, because it's not even meaningful in our universe. So in our universe, then, the only things that can be in the source code are things about "neighboring pixels".
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 6:29 am
but that is not how real life works
I agree
In reality, high-level code even if it exists cannot override low-level code. Low-level code is the laws of nature! So the tension that I am talking about is unavoidable.
But not for this reason, this is just begging the question.

It's totally in principle possible for a universe to exist where there is high level code, and it does override low level code. I don't see any reason to believe that's not possible, you're just insisiting that it's not, even despite acknowledging that I'm capable of programming a world where it does happen. If I can program it, then surely you must agree that it's in principle possible in some world.

The reason it's not possible in this world, in my opinion, is because the principle of locality is much more fundamental in this world than in Conway's Game of Life.

You see, in Conway's Game of Life, the base rules are fully local - the only rules governing what a single pixel will do next are all based on the state of neighboring pixels, so the only hard causes of anything in Conway's are entirely and completely local. BUT as we've discussed, it is totally possible to change Conway's programmiong slightly to introduce non-locality. Even as a simpler example, just imagine that I added in a stipulation that a pixel 20 pixels up and to the left may ALSO affect the pixels next state -- that would be easy to code, *not* an example of strong emergence but still non-local, and wouldn't require any sort of large scale overhaul of the basic logic of Conway's Game -- not an overhaul, just an extra rule to code in.

However, in our universe, we have an Einstein, and in our Universe, our Einstein seems to have proven Relativity, specifically for the case of this conversation, Relativity of Simultaneity. So while in Conway's game we can ask a question like "what is the state of a pixel 20 pixels up and to the left right now?", in our world, anything sufficiently far away from another thing, you cannot objectively ask the question "What is the state of that thing right now?" "Right Now" isn't an objective global thing in our world like it is in Conway's Game.

Locality in physics seems to have been a long-standing preference - something that physicists thought was probably true, but didn't have any proof, but it was more based on what they thought would be mathematically beautiful, which is to some a compelling reason to believe something but not necessarily to everyone. But the advent of Relativity, in my view, made locality no longer just a matter of mathematical beauty but a complete requirement. If Relativity is true, Locality must also be true. And if locality is true, that means that the source code of the universe CANNOT ask questions analogous to "what is the state of a pixel 20 pixels up and to the left right now?". That question isn't allowed, because it's not even meaningful in our universe. So in our universe, then, the only things that can be in the source code are things about "neighboring pixels".
No, low-level code cannot be overridden. But let's assume it is true for sake of discussion. You still owe to explain four things: 1) How high-level code emerges? 2) How high-level code can override low-level code knowing the fact that the low-level code is intrinsic? 3) How possibly high-level code could even exist when the low-level code does not and is overridden? 4) How possibly could you have the life in the first place in Conway's game if low-level code is overridden?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Flannel Jesus »

No, low-level code cannot be overridden
Mate, I'm a programmer. You can program anything. You can program code that governs pixels to be overridden in other circumstances. It's pretty straight forward.
1) How high-level code emerges?
In the case of my code, it would be there because I programmed it there. It's the same as any other code - you define your logic, and then run it.
2) How high-level code can override low-level code knowing the fact that the low-level code is intrinsic?
All code is "intrinsic". The fact that it's code makes it intrinsic to the system. High level code, in this context, just means code that makes references to groups of low-level objects. But all code is equally "intrinsic".
3) How possibly high-level code could even exist when the low-level code does not and is overridden?
The low level code does exist -- it couldn't be overridden if it was not.
4) How possibly could you have the life in the first place in Conway's game if low-level code is overridden?
I don't understand what this question means.
seeds
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by seeds »

bahman wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 5:19 pm But I already argued against strong emergence in OP...
Actually, bahman, all you did in your OP is describe the elements of "weak emergence," while insisting (or at least, implying) that there is no such thing as "emergence" in any form.
bahman wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 5:19 pm ...Moreover, the existence of phenomena such as free will, consciousness, etc. does not mean that we necessarily are dealing with strong emergence....
When something that we call "mind"...

(which is not only immaterial and un-measurable, but also contains a conscious [self-aware] agent who is in possession of free will)

...emerges from a measurable material substance in which no mind or self-aware (conscious) agent can be located, then, yes, we are indeed dealing with "strong emergence."
bahman wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 5:19 pm ...There are other models of mind such as dualism in which there are two substances qualia and mind,...
Generally speaking, "dualism" has to do with the difference between "mind" and "matter," not mind and qualia.
bahman wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 5:19 pm ...mind is an irreducible substance with abilities to experience, freely decide, and cause.
My goodness, bahman, you don't even realize when you are making statements that refute your own argument.

In mathematics, for example, the term "irreducible" is defined as follows:
irreducible
adjective

...of or relating to a group that cannot be written as the direct product of two of its subgroups.
_______
And the point is that when an "irreducible" substance with the ability to "experience, freely decide, and cause" (i.e., mind),...

...emerges from a subgroup of substances that have absolutely no ability to experience, freely decide, and cause (i.e., unconscious brain components),...

...then you are describing an instance of "strong emergence."
_______
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:52 pm
No, low-level code cannot be overridden
Mate, I'm a programmer. You can program anything. You can program code that governs pixels to be overridden in other circumstances. It's pretty straight forward.
I mean in real life rather than programming.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:52 pm
1) How high-level code emerges?
In the case of my code, it would be there because I programmed it there. It's the same as any other code - you define your logic, and then run it.
I mean how the high-level code emerges in nature. There is no such thing in nature to the best of our knowledge.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:52 pm
2) How high-level code can override low-level code knowing the fact that the low-level code is intrinsic?
All code is "intrinsic". The fact that it's code makes it intrinsic to the system. High level code, in this context, just means code that makes references to groups of low-level objects. But all code is equally "intrinsic".
I mean how do you deal with the tension between high- and low-level code? You cannot get rid of low-level code.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:52 pm
3) How possibly high-level code could even exist when the low-level code does not and is overridden?
The low level code does exist -- it couldn't be overridden if it was not.
If the low-level code does not exist then you lose your low-level objects.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:52 pm
4)
How possibly could you have the life in the first place in Conway's game if low-level code is overridden?
I don't understand what this question means.
I mean if the low-level code does not exist then you lose your low-level objects.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Nobody is suggesting that the 'low level code does not exist' but you, and you're only suggesting it to refute it. You're just refuting yourself. I don't think the low level code doesn't exist. You don't think the low level code doesn't exist. Nobody thinks the low level code doesn't exist. I don't know why that's an important point to you - the low level code is there!
I mean in real life rather than programming.
I agree with you that it doesn't exist in real life, but we don't have access to the source code of real life. You seem to believe up to this point that *in principle* there can be no strong emergence, but I've been trying to establish that *in principle*, and NOT *in real life*, strong emergence means high level code overriding low level code, and that's accomplishable NOT in real life but in contexts where we DO have access to the source code, such as in Conway's Game of Life.
I mean how do you deal with the tension between high- and low-level code? You cannot get rid of low-level code.
As a programmer, I deal with situations of some rules overriding other rules all the time. There are many ways to implement overriding rules.

One way is to calculate the result of one set of rules first, then check if there's any condition that requires an overriding rule to run and run that second, so that the final result is the result of the overriding rule. But there's plenty of other ways to do it. This "tension" that you speak of is an abstraction that's important to you, but doesn't exist in programming. In programming, there's no tension - you just run the rules, and see the output. Some rules can take precedence over other rules, or override the other rules output, or cause other rules not to run. There's no tension, that's just a made up concept that you think is relevant.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman »

seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 5:19 pm But I already argued against strong emergence in OP...
Actually, bahman, all you did in your OP is describe the elements of "weak emergence," while insisting (or at least, implying) that there is no such thing as "emergence" in any form.
No, actually what I showed is that all sorts of emergence are weak.
seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 5:19 pm ...Moreover, the existence of phenomena such as free will, consciousness, etc. does not mean that we necessarily are dealing with strong emergence....
When something that we call "mind"...

(which is not only immaterial and un-measurable, but also contains a conscious [self-aware] agent who is in possession of free will)

...emerges from a measurable material substance in which no mind or self-aware (conscious) agent can be located, then, yes, we are indeed dealing with "strong emergence."
But the mind cannot emerge as a result of the matter process since the mind has free will therefore it is the uncaused cause.
seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 5:19 pm ...There are other models of mind such as dualism in which there are two substances qualia and mind,...
Generally speaking, "dualism" has to do with the difference between "mind" and "matter," not mind and qualia.
I am talking about another but right version of dualism.
seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 5:19 pm ...mind is an irreducible substance with abilities to experience, freely decide, and cause.
My goodness, bahman, you don't even realize when you are making statements that refute your own argument.

In mathematics, for example, the term "irreducible" is defined as follows:
irreducible
adjective

...of or relating to a group that cannot be written as the direct product of two of its subgroups.
_______

And the point is that when an "irreducible" substance with the ability to "experience, freely decide, and cause" (i.e., mind),...

...emerges from a subgroup of substances that have absolutely no ability to experience, freely decide, and cause (i.e., unconscious brain components),...

...then you are describing an instance of "strong emergence."
_______
The mind cannot be created or emerged or destroyed. I am talking about dualism and not monism.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 7:46 pm Nobody is suggesting that the 'low level code does not exist' but you, and you're only suggesting it to refute it. You're just refuting yourself. I don't think the low level code doesn't exist. You don't think the low level code doesn't exist. Nobody thinks the low level code doesn't exist. I don't know why that's an important point to you - the low level code is there!
I mean in real life rather than programming.
I agree with you that it doesn't exist in real life, but we don't have access to the source code of real life. You seem to believe up to this point that *in principle* there can be no strong emergence, but I've been trying to establish that *in principle*, and NOT *in real life*, strong emergence means high level code overriding low level code, and that's accomplishable NOT in real life but in contexts where we DO have access to the source code, such as in Conway's Game of Life.
You avoid answering my other question about the emergence of high-level code. How could you have a strong emergent property when the underlying properties that support it do not exist.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 7:46 pm
I mean how do you deal with the tension between high- and low-level code? You cannot get rid of low-level code.
As a programmer, I deal with situations of some rules overriding other rules all the time. There are many ways to implement overriding rules.

One way is to calculate the result of one set of rules first, then check if there's any condition that requires an overriding rule to run and run that second, so that the final result is the result of the overriding rule. But there's plenty of other ways to do it. This "tension" that you speak of is an abstraction that's important to you, but doesn't exist in programming. In programming, there's no tension - you just run the rules, and see the output. Some rules can take precedence over other rules, or override the other rules output, or cause other rules not to run. There's no tension, that's just a made up concept that you think is relevant.
II mean in real life rather than programing. Low-level code keeps running always and you cannot get rid of it.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Flannel Jesus »

You avoid answering my other question about the emergence of high-level code. How could you have a strong emergent property when the underlying properties that support it do not exist.
The phrase "emergence of high level code" isn't... how I'd word it. Strong Emergence isn't about the CODE emerging, it's a question of whether that code exists, whether those rules exist - the consequence of that code is what they're referring to as "strong emergence" - the code is just code. The same as any other "code" that governs how the universe runs.
How could you have a strong emergent property when the underlying properties that support it do not exist.
I don't know what that means. I don't feel like it's relevant to any of the concepts I've discussed.
II mean in real life rather than programing. Low-level code keeps running always and you cannot get rid of it.
I don't want to repeat this any more - I agree with you that in real life, strong emergence doesn't and probably cannot exist. "Code" is just an analogy (although possibly an incredibly apt analogy). Just like in Conways' Game of Life, one might suppose that there are Rules, that are unbreakable, that govern how the next state of reality comes about at any given point in space from the previous state of reality. That's what Conway's Game of Life is an analogy for. We don't have access to the source code of reality, so it doesn't matter how many times you say "I mean in reality" -- we don't have access to the rules of reality! We can only give a best guess, and in this case, we can conceptually work with close analogies - of which Conway's Game of Life is one.
Low-level code keeps running always and you cannot get rid of it.
The concept of Strong Emergence I've been discussing isn't about getting rid of the low level code, just overriding it, taking precedence over it.

Once again, just to make sure it's absolutely clear: this concept of Strong Emergence I'm talking about is *in principle* possible, but I agree with you that it is probably not possible in the universe we find ourselves in. But it is possible, maybe even COMMON, to write code that has low level rules that get overriden by high level rules. There's nothing in principle that prevents that. There are things that prevent that from being the case for the laws of physics here, in my opinion, but that claim isn't applicable to all possible universes.
Post Reply