There cannot be any emergence

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Logik » Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:14 pm

Walker wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:56 am
There is no such thing.
Energy

Walker
Posts: 6880
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Walker » Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:28 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.
What are the irreducible parts of energy?

"For those who want some proof that physicists are human, the proof is in the idiocy of all the different units which they use for measuring energy."
— Richard P. Feynman

Walker
Posts: 6880
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Walker » Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:52 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:14 pm
Walker wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:56 am
There is no such thing.
Energy
Can you get it right?

“Energy is a very subtle concept. It is very, very difficult to get right.”
- Richard Feynman

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Logik » Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:59 pm

Walker wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:52 pm
Can you get it right?

“Energy is a very subtle concept. It is very, very difficult to get right.”
- Richard Feynman
I don't know. Did I get it wrong?

I suppose you could argue that a Joule is kg⋅m2⋅s−2, but then you would be making a claim that mass, distance and time are irreducible.

If you think I got it wrong then go ahead and reduce them.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Logik » Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:09 pm

Walker wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:28 pm
"For those who want some proof that physicists are human, the proof is in the idiocy of all the different units which they use for measuring energy."
— Richard P. Feynman
I believe we've standardized on the Joule?

Walker
Posts: 6880
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Walker » Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:15 pm

“It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and when we add it all together it gives “28”—always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.”

- Feynman
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html

Impenitent
Posts: 2394
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Impenitent » Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:44 pm

28? nope

it's 42

-Imp

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by bahman » Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:45 pm

-1- wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:04 pm
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 emergence since the thing can be explained in terms of the parts but not in different combinations of parts, and using some of the parts but not others, and using different parts.

Example: A creature whose body is made of A-B-C, will behave differently from another creature, whose body is made of C-A-B. The function of A-B and the function of B-C, that is the function of adjacent parts will be transferable; but different combinations will produce different results. For instance, C-A will not behave anything like A-B or B-C.
I agree that different combinations produce different results.
-1- wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:04 pm
The parts are the same, the same combination of the same parts will have always the same function, but if the parts are the same and they are in different couplings, then their function will be uniquely different.

Therefore, if the creature A-B-C produces creature C-A-B, then there is emergence.
This cannot happen unless there is an element of randomness in the system.
-1- wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:04 pm
And that exactly is what changes in DNA and the ramifications of the changes in the resulting organism produce.

------------------

In conclusion: the organism indeed behaves identically, if the parts are the same in a one-to-one correspondence, are arranged in the same way as in the parent's parts. But this can change; one way is leaving or adding irreducible parts, which is not part of the hypothesis, so I'll leave that alone. But two creatures can be different if (1) the parts are the same, in number and in type, but the parts are arranged differently. (1) has not been excluded from the hypothesis, therefore the theorem does not stand.
I cannot follow you here.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Logik » Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:47 pm

Walker wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:15 pm
“It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and when we add it all together it gives “28”—always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.”

- Feynman
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html
Naturally. That's how all of science works. Molecules 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.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by bahman » Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:55 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:12 pm
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
No it doesn't. Emergence describes behaviors of collections of objects that individuals cannot have on their own. Such as sand, which can form into heaps (an example I am stealing from Dennett) which has a property of tending to collapse at random that a mere pile of sand does not.
That is how the article define emergence: "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". Of course the whole can behave different than parts. What I am saying is that the behavior of the whole is the result of behavior of parts.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:12 pm
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
This is a poor argument. The emergent property can only be explained in terms of many of the parts. you are casually trying to dismiss it as if it were explicable by any of them individually.
No I am not trying to do that.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by bahman » 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.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by bahman » 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.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by bahman » Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:03 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.
Aren't me and you different?

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Logik » Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:07 pm

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.
OK, so you have re-defined the boundary of the "whole". How many "wholes" are there ?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by bahman » Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:10 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:07 pm
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.
OK, so you have re-defined the boundary of the "whole". How many "wholes" are there ?
A lot.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests