There cannot be any emergence

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2233
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:59 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:31 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 6:04 pm
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:40 pm

You don’t have emergence and complex interactions in physics?

Just because we are on the other end of the complexity spectrum nothing changes.
Physics is a field of study for formulating things in reality. Things to the best of our knowledge is made of irreducible parts. Therefore the main attempt in physics is to understand the behavior of parts, theory of everything. Quantum electrodynamics in this regards is a huge success, very precise. Please read the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED

Moreover, there is a reason why things behave in a specific way. Things are made of parts. Parts behave in specific way. Therefore this is so natural to think that behavior of a thing can be explained in term of behavior of parts. We simply don't have anything but parts which can contribute in behavior of a thing.
OK and? How is this in conflict with anything I said?

From the quantum world emerges the classical world.
From the classical world emerges chemistry.
From chemistry emerges organic chemistry.
From organic chemistry emerges organisms (abiogenesis - the missing link for evolution)
From primitive organisms emerge more complex organisms with organs like brains.
From brains emerge minds.

Even if the whole was the sum of its parts, you are stuck with the problem of complexity, which is how a lot of physicists see it.
The divide between quantum and special relativity is the divide between the very small and very large.

For you to determine the behaviour of a mind you need to determine the behaviour of the entire body from quantum phenomena.

How many fundamental particles, their properties and their interactions do you need to track? What equation do you need to solve to predict the behaviour of a "mind" from first principles? How long would it take you to solve such an equation even if you had all the inputs?
It is not matter of solving the wave equation. Of course you need to solve the wave equation if you want to predict the behavior of a system. It is matter of the fact that a solution for the wave equation exist therefore there is no emergence. Saying that there is a emergence is like saying that there is something more than the wave function which describe the behavior of the system. This just doesn't make any sense to me.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:31 am
Lastly. I question your use of "parts behave in specific way". There's the distinction between specific-and-deterministic vs specific-but-probabilistic.
For one can always argue that probabilistic phenomena are epistemic e.g the reason they appears probabilistic is because you lack understanding of the the parts and their interaction.
The wave equation is deterministic. Wave function is a probabilistic entity.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:31 am
Personally, I am not a fan of the Copenhagen interpretation, and so one could define emergence as "absence of absolute determinism"
There will be no Y if there is no mind who experience X.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2023
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:20 am

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:48 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:09 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:25 pm

I think that human can contribute in reality but human is not only being with mind.
If you agree human can contribute in reality, then emergence do manifests thus contra your OP.
Reality is reality-as-it-is which is an emergence conditioned upon the human conditions [body, mind, consciousness, etc].

I do agree certain entities like those in higher animals do have some sort of brain/mind but the point is the reality-as-it-is to a bat is not the same as reality-as-it-is to humans. In both cases, there is emergence.

Note there is no reality-as-it-is that is the same [universal, absolute and independent] to all living entities. There is no reality_as_it_is-in-itself. There is no reality_as_it_is created by a God [illusory and impossible].

Thus reality-as-it-is is an emergence conditioned upon whatever the entity that reality emerges simultaneously with.
Then show me that how emergence is possible unless we are dealing with a magic. Where does magic exactly happen?
Here one one example you can verify the process of emergence yourself.

The Einstein Mask in 3D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORoTCBrCKIQ

Note how a 3D convex shape of Einstein slowly emerges as the image turns and is set upon your eyes.
The truth is the 3D convex Einstein image is ACTUALLY a concave image but you mind insist it is a convex 3D shape.
This is emergence in process to present you a 'reality' of a convex shape.

If nobody told you the underlying shape is concave, you will never know and take it based on empirical evidence you are seeing a real convex 3D Einstein face.
This is proof of emergence with the brain/mind as a co-participant.

The above principle is applicable to every aspect of what you have accepted as reality-as-it-is which is an emergent.

Note what humans feel as solid objects are merely emergence and are 'deception' by the brain/mind to make humans see and feel certain objects as solid things. The fact is, if the electrons of the object stop spinning there will be no solid object to be felt.
Thus a near atomic size virus will not see emerging solid objects like humans do.

If you reflect deeper based on the above principles of emergence, you will realize the whole of reality-as-it-is is the same as the above examples above and as such reality-as-it-is is an emergence in tandem with the human conditions.

Therefore, emergence exists which contra your OP.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2233
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by bahman » Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:19 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:20 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:48 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:09 am

If you agree human can contribute in reality, then emergence do manifests thus contra your OP.
Reality is reality-as-it-is which is an emergence conditioned upon the human conditions [body, mind, consciousness, etc].

I do agree certain entities like those in higher animals do have some sort of brain/mind but the point is the reality-as-it-is to a bat is not the same as reality-as-it-is to humans. In both cases, there is emergence.

Note there is no reality-as-it-is that is the same [universal, absolute and independent] to all living entities. There is no reality_as_it_is-in-itself. There is no reality_as_it_is created by a God [illusory and impossible].

Thus reality-as-it-is is an emergence conditioned upon whatever the entity that reality emerges simultaneously with.
Then show me that how emergence is possible unless we are dealing with a magic. Where does magic exactly happen?
Here one one example you can verify the process of emergence yourself.

The Einstein Mask in 3D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORoTCBrCKIQ

Note how a 3D convex shape of Einstein slowly emerges as the image turns and is set upon your eyes.
The truth is the 3D convex Einstein image is ACTUALLY a concave image but you mind insist it is a convex 3D shape.
This is emergence in process to present you a 'reality' of a convex shape.

If nobody told you the underlying shape is concave, you will never know and take it based on empirical evidence you are seeing a real convex 3D Einstein face.
This is proof of emergence with the brain/mind as a co-participant.

The above principle is applicable to every aspect of what you have accepted as reality-as-it-is which is an emergent.

Note what humans feel as solid objects are merely emergence and are 'deception' by the brain/mind to make humans see and feel certain objects as solid things. The fact is, if the electrons of the object stop spinning there will be no solid object to be felt.
Thus a near atomic size virus will not see emerging solid objects like humans do.

If you reflect deeper based on the above principles of emergence, you will realize the whole of reality-as-it-is is the same as the above examples above and as such reality-as-it-is is an emergence in tandem with the human conditions.

Therefore, emergence exists which contra your OP.
That is a interesting example but you didn't explain that how and where this magic happens? I would be happy to stick with taste of salt.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:33 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:19 pm
That is a interesting example but you didn't explain that how and where this magic happens? I would be happy to stick with taste of salt.
It seems to me that the crux of the disagreement is where and how emergence occurs.

It's a psychological phenomenon - it takes place in minds. It arises from the various heuristics and tricks our mind applies to simplify complex reality.
It is necessary - so that we can have some hope of "understanding" something. Anything. It is necessary so that you can conceptualise 10^23 atoms.

So the crux of this disagreement seems to be whether we ought to call psychological phenomena "real". I do. They are every bit as real as any other experience. To say that psychological phenomena are not "real" is to claim that the mind is not real - mysticism, I tell you!

It is precisely because psychological phenomena are real and have clear psychological consequences, the key to good science is to account for; and navigate around them! Navigate around the mind's shortcuts which requires great amount of introspection and self-awareness.

But ultimately science pursues far more complex models of reality than you apply in your day-to-day life.
We make far greater use of heuristics than we do of accurate models as Kahneman points out in his book "Thinking, fast and slow"

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2233
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by bahman » Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:32 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:33 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:19 pm
That is a interesting example but you didn't explain that how and where this magic happens? I would be happy to stick with taste of salt.
It seems to me that the crux of the disagreement is where and how emergence occurs.

It's a psychological phenomenon - it takes place in minds. It arises from the various heuristics and tricks our mind applies to simplify complex reality.
It is necessary - so that we can have some hope of "understanding" something. Anything. It is necessary so that you can conceptualise 10^23 atoms.

So the crux of this disagreement seems to be whether we ought to call psychological phenomena "real". I do. They are every bit as real as any other experience. To say that psychological phenomena are not "real" is to claim that the mind is not real - mysticism, I tell you!

It is precisely because psychological phenomena are real and have clear psychological consequences, the key to good science is to account for; and navigate around them! Navigate around the mind's shortcuts which requires great amount of introspection and self-awareness.

But ultimately science pursues far more complex models of reality than you apply in your day-to-day life.
We make far greater use of heuristics than we do of accurate models as Kahneman points out in his book "Thinking, fast and slow"
We know the model and we have quantum theory. A person and salt can be considered a close system. We know that salt trigger some sensor on our tongue. These sensors then send a pulse into brain. We know the wave function for such a system exists. The wave function is all that is there. There is a difference between wave function when there is salt or not. The question is how this difference can manifest itself to the experience of taste of salt? It does not make any sense when you think about it. At the end, the difference is only between two wave functions. Wave function simply is related to presence of a particle. It is not something magical.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:39 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:32 pm
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:33 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:19 pm
That is a interesting example but you didn't explain that how and where this magic happens? I would be happy to stick with taste of salt.
It seems to me that the crux of the disagreement is where and how emergence occurs.

It's a psychological phenomenon - it takes place in minds. It arises from the various heuristics and tricks our mind applies to simplify complex reality.
It is necessary - so that we can have some hope of "understanding" something. Anything. It is necessary so that you can conceptualise 10^23 atoms.

So the crux of this disagreement seems to be whether we ought to call psychological phenomena "real". I do. They are every bit as real as any other experience. To say that psychological phenomena are not "real" is to claim that the mind is not real - mysticism, I tell you!

It is precisely because psychological phenomena are real and have clear psychological consequences, the key to good science is to account for; and navigate around them! Navigate around the mind's shortcuts which requires great amount of introspection and self-awareness.

But ultimately science pursues far more complex models of reality than you apply in your day-to-day life.
We make far greater use of heuristics than we do of accurate models as Kahneman points out in his book "Thinking, fast and slow"
We know the model and we have quantum theory. A person and salt can be considered a close system. We know that salt trigger some sensor on our tongue. These sensors then send a pulse into brain. We know the wave function for such a system exists. The wave function is all that is there. There is a difference between wave function when there is salt or not. The question is how this difference can manifest itself to the experience of taste of salt? It does not make any sense when you think about it. At the end, the difference is only between two wave functions. Wave function simply is related to presence of a particle. It is not something magical.
Just because it is considered a closed system doesn’t make it so.

That is just more heuristic at play. We can pretend that some interactions don’t matter for the phenomena we are interested in, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are now working with an abstract representation of the system.

An incomplete model.

I would be willing to argue that there is only one closed system in existence and we call it “The Universe”.

Again. This is the human condition at play: choosing where to draw the lines in a universe without any.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2233
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by bahman » Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:47 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:39 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:32 pm
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:33 pm

It seems to me that the crux of the disagreement is where and how emergence occurs.

It's a psychological phenomenon - it takes place in minds. It arises from the various heuristics and tricks our mind applies to simplify complex reality.
It is necessary - so that we can have some hope of "understanding" something. Anything. It is necessary so that you can conceptualise 10^23 atoms.

So the crux of this disagreement seems to be whether we ought to call psychological phenomena "real". I do. They are every bit as real as any other experience. To say that psychological phenomena are not "real" is to claim that the mind is not real - mysticism, I tell you!

It is precisely because psychological phenomena are real and have clear psychological consequences, the key to good science is to account for; and navigate around them! Navigate around the mind's shortcuts which requires great amount of introspection and self-awareness.

But ultimately science pursues far more complex models of reality than you apply in your day-to-day life.
We make far greater use of heuristics than we do of accurate models as Kahneman points out in his book "Thinking, fast and slow"
We know the model and we have quantum theory. A person and salt can be considered a close system. We know that salt trigger some sensor on our tongue. These sensors then send a pulse into brain. We know the wave function for such a system exists. The wave function is all that is there. There is a difference between wave function when there is salt or not. The question is how this difference can manifest itself to the experience of taste of salt? It does not make any sense when you think about it. At the end, the difference is only between two wave functions. Wave function simply is related to presence of a particle. It is not something magical.
Just because it is considered a closed system doesn’t make it so.

That is just more heuristic at play. We can pretend that some interactions don’t matter for the phenomena we are interested in, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are now working with an abstract representation of the system.

An incomplete model.

I would be willing to argue that there is only one closed system in existence and we call it “The Universe”.

Again. This is the human condition at play: choosing where to draw the lines in a universe without any!
So you are claiming that the interaction between the system and rest of the universe, which is negligible, causes the experience of taste of salt?

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:48 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:47 pm
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:39 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:32 pm

We know the model and we have quantum theory. A person and salt can be considered a close system. We know that salt trigger some sensor on our tongue. These sensors then send a pulse into brain. We know the wave function for such a system exists. The wave function is all that is there. There is a difference between wave function when there is salt or not. The question is how this difference can manifest itself to the experience of taste of salt? It does not make any sense when you think about it. At the end, the difference is only between two wave functions. Wave function simply is related to presence of a particle. It is not something magical.
Just because it is considered a closed system doesn’t make it so.

That is just more heuristic at play. We can pretend that some interactions don’t matter for the phenomena we are interested in, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are now working with an abstract representation of the system.

An incomplete model.

I would be willing to argue that there is only one closed system in existence and we call it “The Universe”.

Again. This is the human condition at play: choosing where to draw the lines in a universe without any!
So you are claiming that the interaction between the system and rest of the universe, which is negligible, causes the experience of taste of salt?
I am claiming that if there was no gravity (which you are necessarily doing by claiming the interaction between salt, your taste buds and your mind is a closed system) you may experience salt differently.

Because Butterfly effect.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2233
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by bahman » Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:53 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:48 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:47 pm
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:39 pm

Just because it is considered a closed system doesn’t make it so.

That is just more heuristic at play. We can pretend that some interactions don’t matter for the phenomena we are interested in, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are now working with an abstract representation of the system.

An incomplete model.

I would be willing to argue that there is only one closed system in existence and we call it “The Universe”.

Again. This is the human condition at play: choosing where to draw the lines in a universe without any!
So you are claiming that the interaction between the system and rest of the universe, which is negligible, causes the experience of taste of salt?
I am claiming that if there was no gravity (which you are necessarily doing by claiming the interaction between salt, your taste buds and your mind is a closed system) you may experience salt differently.
I can accept that the taste of salt can slightly change if we consider gravity into equation. The question is where the taste comes from?

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:57 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:53 pm
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:48 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:47 pm

So you are claiming that the interaction between the system and rest of the universe, which is negligible, causes the experience of taste of salt?
I am claiming that if there was no gravity (which you are necessarily doing by claiming the interaction between salt, your taste buds and your mind is a closed system) you may experience salt differently.
I can accept that the taste of salt can slightly change if we consider gravity into equation. The question is where the taste comes from?
If you subtract gravity from the equation the entire universe changes.

You and the salt.

Again - you are doing the typical scientist thng trying to isolate phenomena. Like “taste” and put it in a box and explain it in terms of its causal factors.

You can only do that with reductionist methods, and reductionist methods are always incomplete.

So you left out gravity to understand taste, in doing so missing the forest for the trees.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2233
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by bahman » Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:02 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:57 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:53 pm
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:48 pm


I am claiming that if there was no gravity (which you are necessarily doing by claiming the interaction between salt, your taste buds and your mind is a closed system) you may experience salt differently.
I can accept that the taste of salt can slightly change if we consider gravity into equation. The question is where the taste comes from?
If you subtract gravity from the equation the entire universe changes.

You and the salt.

Again - you are doing the typical scientist thng trying to isolate phenomena. Like “taste” and put it in a box.

You can only do that with reductionist methods, and reductionist methods are always incomplete.
There was only one person one thing, the universe, if reductionist picture was incomplete. You are a person. Aren't you?

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:08 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:02 pm
There was only one person one thing, the universe, if reductionist picture was incomplete. You are a person. Aren't you?
More human condition stuff. I am part OF the universe.

I have no idea what consciousness/mind is , but I have self-awareness. And self, being aware of itself, likes being alive even if it doesn't understand how this place works. As I said - because I am a physical being - the limits of physics apply to my own understanding.

For what is knowledge but me trying to build a representative model of The Universe in my mind. Some sense of proportionality would rapidly notice that the universe is very big and my mind is very small. So all I can ever hope for is heuristics.

Which begs the question: which details can I afford to omit and which details are absolutely mandatory for one's model of reality? I need a prioritization function!

Do you have one?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2233
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by bahman » Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:25 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:08 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:02 pm
There was only one person one thing, the universe, if reductionist picture was incomplete. You are a person. Aren't you?
More human condition stuff. I am part OF the universe.

I have no idea what consciousness/mind is , but I have self-awareness. And self, being aware of itself, likes being alive even if it doesn't understand how this place works. As I said - because I am a physical being - the limits of physics apply to my own understanding.

For what is knowledge but me trying to build a representative model of The Universe in my mind. Some sense of proportionality would rapidly notice that the universe is very big and my mind is very small. So all I can ever hope for is heuristics.

Which begs the question: which details can I afford to omit and which details are absolutely mandatory for one's model of reality? I need a prioritization function!

Do you have one?
Salt tastes the same if you taste it when you are upside down. Therefore the gravity has negligible effect. You are a person so your wave function is bounded to where you are. Therefore we can ignore the effect of charge of other particles. So the model I introduced should work.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:26 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:25 pm
Salt tastes the same if you taste it when you are upside down. Therefore the gravity has negligible effect.
That's not how science works in its pure form. Ceteris paribus, right?

The way to determine if gravity has a negligible effect is to do a representative experiment.

Turn gravity off then lick the salt.

Until you figure out how to do that I guess you will never know whether gravity has a minimal or significant effect on the taste of salt...

If I were a betting man, I would imagine you are going to break something if you figured out how to turn off gravity...

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2233
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by bahman » Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:32 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:26 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:25 pm
Salt tastes the same if you taste it when you are upside down. Therefore the gravity has negligible effect.
That's not how science works in its pure form. Ceteris paribus, right?

The way to determine if gravity has a negligible effect is to do a representative experiment.

Turn gravity off then lick the salt.

Until you figure out how to do that I guess you will never know whether gravity has a significant effect on the taste of salt...
That is exactly how the science works. I change the direction of gravity and system behaved the same. This means that the gravity has negligible effect.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest