There is no emergence

[bahman]

@Karpel Tunnel

@bahman

There is no emergence when there is a function.

Or it is useful to say there is. We don’t have this function at the parts level, then we have this particular function when a specific configuration is there at the level of hte whole. I can’t see a reason not to label the function or property emergent. The word emerge nicely spreads the responsibility around, since it implies that, in a certain sense it was there as a potential, but needed the whole to be realized.

It seems that we need to agree on definition first. In here I am arguing against strong emergence which claim that the system is other the sum of parts. Strong emergence is a claim that if you have parts and know that how parts work together, laws of nature, then you are not able to explain the system (meaning that there is no function which describes the system). Here you are talking about weak emergence.

@Karpel Tunnel

What do you mean? Could you please expand this?

When we reduce everything to the parts and shift the parts around and think we know what will happen or what the larger system is like, we make mistakes. The people making gm products made mistakes like this. They assumed that genes were randomly placed. You replace one, you simply change one trait or production of this protein. But the genes work as wholes, so they created all sorts of unintended effects.

People make mistake about genes because they don’t know that genes are interacting objects.

@Karpel Tunnel

You can’t always understand what wholes will be like based on what the parts are like. emergence as a concept functions nicely as a quick way to say this. Hey, you know all about those parts when they are parts, but that doesn’t mean you know what happens when they are in wholes. New stuff happens. It seems like a very useful way to speak and describe. I see no reason to give this up. I also think there is no reason to think of the world in ways that prioritize parts - at least all the time. We find ourselves in a world with wholes. Of course one can learn by taking things apart and learning about parts on their own. But reductionism prioritizes this. At other times it is useful to think of the functions and properties of wholes as the thing, and the properties of the traits as secondary or not important for our thinking at those times. To say there is no emergence is to say it is just parts. But that is not the world we find ourselves in.

This the part that I have issue with it, strong emergence. The heart of my argument is that there should exist a reason that the system has specific property rather than any other properties therefore there is a function which describes the property of the system in term of the properties of the parts. Therefore emergence (read it strong emergence) does not exist.

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@bahman

It seems that we need to agree on definition first. In here I am arguing against strong emergence which claim that the system is other the sum of parts. Strong emergence is a claim that if you have parts and know that how parts work together, laws of nature, then you are not able to explain the system (meaning that there is no function which describes the system). Here you are talking about weak emergence.

It seems like one is either a panspychist or a pantheist if one does not believe in strong emergence.

Otherwise you are simply saying you know X (about particles) is true, but have no way to demonstrate it. Deduction is always dependent on what is correct and incorrect in our limited knowledge. We have made seemingly obvious metaphysical deductions before in human history and been proven quite wrong.

People make mistake about genes because they don’t know that genes are interacting objects.

Right, it’s unbelievable that the don’t get this, and I mean, lots of geneticists, at least those who work for Monsanto.

This the part that I have issue with it, strong emergence. The heart of my argument is that there should exist a reason that the system has specific property rather than any other properties therefore there is a function which describes the property of the system in term of the properties of the parts. Therefore emergence (read it strong emergence) does not exist.

I think this is a coming-from-parts perspective. If you come from wholes downward, it is no surprise that breaking a pattern/structure might reduce the number of functions and qualities.

[bahman]

@Karpel Tunnel

@bahman

It seems that we need to agree on definition first. In here I am arguing against strong emergence which claim that the system is other the sum of parts. Strong emergence is a claim that if you have parts and know that how parts work together, laws of nature, then you are not able to explain the system (meaning that there is no function which describes the system). Here you are talking about weak emergence.

It seems like one is either a panspychist or a pantheist if one does not believe in strong emergence.

Sure. Here I provided an argument against strong emergence.

@Karpel Tunnel

This the part that I have issue with it, strong emergence. The heart of my argument is that there should exist a reason that the system has specific property rather than any other properties therefore there is a function which describes the property of the system in term of the properties of the parts. Therefore emergence (read it strong emergence) does not exist.

I think this is a coming-from-parts perspective. If you come from wholes downward, it is no surprise that breaking a pattern/structure might reduce the number of functions and qualities.

No. This is not coming from parts perspective. It is about a fact that there is a reason why system has very specific property rather than any other property.

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@bahman

No. This is not coming from parts perspective. It is about a fact that there is a reason why system has very specific property rather than any other property.

It would be the same kind of reason that some quarks have this or that spin. If one does not come from a parts upward perspective, then there is no reason to assume the parts are the reason the system has that property. If the systems are primary, they have qualities that are or may be just given. Just as the parts have qualities that are merely given. Somewhere in the universe there are ‘things’ that just have qualities. They just have them. Not because something smaller is like X. Unless it is elephants all the way down. Which again is a property. Why time? Why space? Because of parts? Why are there parts? Because of the qualities of parts?

[bahman]

@Karpel Tunnel

@bahman

No. This is not coming from parts perspective. It is about a fact that there is a reason why system has very specific property rather than any other property.

It would be the same kind of reason that some quarks have this or that spin. If one does not come from a parts upward perspective, then there is no reason to assume the parts are the reason the system has that property. If the systems are primary, they have qualities that are or may be just given. Just as the parts have qualities that are merely given. Somewhere in the universe there are ‘things’ that just have qualities. They just have them. Not because something smaller is like X. Unless it is elephants all the way down. Which again is a property. Why time? Why space? Because of parts? Why are there parts? Because of the qualities of parts?

Well, the question is then whether there is a worldview that can exhaustively explain everything? Apparently quarks has specific property too therefore it could not be the fundamental bases of reality.

[Jakob]

GUYS
guys.
A property is a function by which, or simply a way in which a thing interacts with an environment.

Yes?
Handy, to define what you’re discussing. Yes?

Okay.

Therefore, a property can never emerge purely “from within”.

What is going on in both particle- AND property-emergence is what we call “calibration”.
Between inside and outside.

OK continue.
Master will return in a month.

[bahman]

@Jakob

GUYS
guys.
A property is a function by which, or simply a way in which a thing interacts with an environment.

We/minds either follow a chain of causality or decide. The chain of causality is the result of all our past experiences. Atoms seems to just behave in a deterministic way which this is assigned to having specific set of properties.

@Jakob

Yes?
Handy, to define what you’re discussing. Yes?

Okay.

I already give a summery of my position (previous comment).

@Jakob

Therefore, a property can never emerge purely “from within”.

What is going on in both particle- AND property-emergence is what we call “calibration”.
Between inside and outside.

Yes, emergence, emergence property being a property which is not a function of the properties of the parts, is impossible.

@Jakob

OK continue.
Master will return in a month.

Great.

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@bahman

Well, the question is then whether there is a worldview that can exhaustively explain everything?

I haven’t seen it yet. Until then I will work with what is useful.

Apparently quarks has specific property too therefore it could not be the fundamental bases of reality.

Wouldn’t surprise me. And how do we decide what is more fundamental. Time vs. Quarks. That there is something, that that is possible - is that a property, a rule, a fact, a ‘thing’ or a thing. Is it more fundamental? IOW sure, their may be parts of quarks, but it might also be that what is fundamental isn’t quite pieces, but mathematical, or a property. Perhaps the pieces are properties and the distinction is problematic. I mean the subatomic level doesn’t always act or seem like pieces, it seems like processes, sometimes mere potentials (things in superposition, precollapsed waves). Sometimes it seems like whatever is fundamental is not even real, yet.

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@Jakob

GUYS
guys.
A property is a function by which, or simply a way in which a thing interacts with an environment.

I like thinking that way also sometimes. And it is good to bring in things like the doctrine of internal relations or it’s opposite. I think both can be useful views. Perhaps there are only properties and no things. I think it depends on what one is doing, trying to do, that matters a lot about which of these ways of viewing it are most useful at a given moment. Metaphysical desire wants this to harden down and be settled. And I get that. But right now I think a more instrumental approach is the best we can hope for.

Yes?
Handy, to define what you’re discussing. Yes?

A useful option, absolutely.

Okay.

Therefore, a property can never emerge purely “from within”.

What is going on in both particle- AND property-emergence is what we call “calibration”.
Between inside and outside.

OK continue.
Master will return in a month.

Well, if you reinvented the wheel on this one, good for you. Nice work, you couldn’t being born late in the game.