There is no emergence

[bahman]

To show this consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in term properties of parts if it is emergent property. There must however be a reason that system has this property rather than another property. This means that there is a function which describe the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of properties of parts. Therefore there is no emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts.

[Jakob]

Your argument stands except in one case; that of a fundamental property.

If this property arises AS being, in every being as its essence, then emergence is possible.

[Mad Man P]

To show this consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in term properties of parts if it is emergent property. There must however be a reason that system has this property rather than another property. This means that there is a function which describe the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of properties of parts. Therefore there is no emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts.

This comes across as confused.
Every system is an emergent property. That's what a system is... it's all the parts + how they work together... that's the emergent bit, the organization... you cannot find that organization outside of the organization.

Where in the behavior of an atom would I find traffic laws?
I would be FORCED to assemble a whole host of atoms into systems and then create more systems from those systems a hundred times over before I had shot at accounting for human nature, much less traffic laws...
Because the behavior of atoms do not result in traffic laws... but the behavior of systems made of systems made of systems... do.

[bahman]

Your argument stands except in one case; that of a fundamental property.

What is a fundamental property?

If this property arises AS being, in every being as its essence, then emergence is possible.

Well, let's accept that. By emergent we mean that the "being property" is not reducible to the properties of the parts. Now suppose that you remove a part. Suppose that the "being property" vanishes. This means that there exists a function which is 0 or 1 (not being or being) depending if the part is removed or not. This means that the "being property" is reducible to the properties of the parts since there is a function which explains the property of the system in term of properties of parts. No need to say that parts contribute in property of the system through their properties.

[bahman]

To show this consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in term properties of parts if it is emergent property. There must however be a reason that system has this property rather than another property. This means that there is a function which describe the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of properties of parts. Therefore there is no emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts.

This comes across as confused.
Every system is an emergent property. That's what a system is... it's all the parts + how they work together... that's the emergent bit, the organization... you cannot find that organization outside of the organization.

Any system is only collection of parts. The property of the system is of course related to how parts work together. How parts work together is however related to properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system is related to properties of parts.

Where in the behavior of an atom would I find traffic laws?
I would be FORCED to assemble a whole host of atoms into systems and then create more systems from those systems a hundred times over before I had shot at accounting for human nature, much less traffic laws...
Because the behavior of atoms do not result in traffic laws... but the behavior of systems made of systems made of systems... do.

There is no doubt that materialism is wrong approach in describing the reality since it cannot explain who traffic laws is derived from behavior of atoms. What they answer when they face such a phenomenon, traffic laws? Emergence. Or in another word magic!

[Mad Man P]

This comes across as confused.
Every system is an emergent property. That's what a system is... it's all the parts + how they work together... that's the emergent bit, the organization... you cannot find that organization outside of the organization.

Any system is only collection of parts. The property of the system is of course related to how parts work together. How parts work together is however related to properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system is related to properties of parts.

You cannot have a system without the parts that make it up... but it is doing something that none of it's parts can do on their own... something NEW

Some of us call this new EMERGENT property, emergent property, unoriginal as that may be... you can call it whatever you like.

[bahman]

This comes across as confused.
Every system is an emergent property. That's what a system is... it's all the parts + how they work together... that's the emergent bit, the organization... you cannot find that organization outside of the organization.

Any system is only collection of parts. The property of the system is of course related to how parts work together. How parts work together is however related to properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system is related to properties of parts.

You cannot have a system without the parts that make it up... but it is doing something that none of it's parts can do on their own... something NEW

Some of us call this new EMERGENT property, emergent property, unoriginal as that may be... you can call it whatever you like.

What I am arguing is that there is always a function which related the property of the system to the properties of parts. There cannot be consciousness system if the parts are unconscious for example. The whole is more than sum of parts. That is what emergence means. The whole is not more than sum of parts when there exists a function which relates the whole to the parts. You can of course make new things though.

[Carleas]

But interactions between the parts don't exist until the parts are put together. And interactions between the interactions don't exist until you have multiple, multi-part systems.

You can say that the way the parts interact is a fundamental property of the parts, but you end up saying that e.g. a molecule of clorine has properties like gas-when-isolated and solid-when-with-sodium. i.e., you end up just taking emergent properties and re-coding them as fundamental properties that aren't expressed until you get a system of parts.

I'd argue emergence is just a useful concept for thinking about phenomena that are easier to talk about at the system level than at the parts level. It's possible to describe traffic in terms of quarks, but it's so cumbersome that we're better off talking about it in terms of people and cars and traffic laws. In some sense emergent properties just don't exist, but a description of the world that makes use of emergent phenomena will be better than a description that tries to talk only about quarks.

[bahman]

But interactions between the parts don't exist until the parts are put together. And interactions between the interactions don't exist until you have multiple, multi-part systems.

Of course interaction is important.

You can say that the way the parts interact is a fundamental property of the parts, but you end up saying that e.g. a molecule of clorine has properties like gas-when-isolated and solid-when-with-sodium. i.e., you end up just taking emergent properties and re-coding them as fundamental properties that aren't expressed until you get a system of parts.

Yes, properties of parts in fact allows parts to interact with each other. No property no interaction. What I am saying is that the property of sodium clorine, solidness for example, can be expressed in term of properties parts of sodium and parts of clorine.

I'd argue emergence is just a useful concept for thinking about phenomena that are easier to talk about at the system level than at the parts level. It's possible to describe traffic in terms of quarks, but it's so cumbersome that we're better off talking about it in terms of people and cars and traffic laws. In some sense emergent properties just don't exist, but a description of the world that makes use of emergent phenomena will be better than a description that tries to talk only about quarks.

If you accept that you can describe traffic in terms of quarks then there is no emergence by definition. Emergence by definition is when a system is larger than sum of parts. This is the part that I have issue with since it claims that there exist not a function that relates the system to sum of parts.

[Carleas]

If you accept that you can describe traffic in terms of quarks then there is no emergence by definition. Emergence by definition is when a system is larger than sum of parts. This is the part that I have issue with since it claims that there exist not a function that relates the system to sum of parts.

I don't think "a system [] larger than the sum of parts" is straightforward. If the parts have properties that can't be predicted* and are only expressed when arranged into a system, is that system larger than it's parts?

Take Conway's Game of Life as an example. The parts are completely defined by a few short rules, and those rules don't say anything about gliders or glider guns or blinkers etc. And yet we see those systems result from the simple parts, and we can say things about the larger systems that don't reference the parts explicitly and say something interesting and different about the system, e.g. the system will move across the grid.

There's no doubt where the behaviors come from, but at the same time those behaviors are definitely not properties of the parts (because the parts are fully and briefly defined in a few explicit rules). It's just semantic to say that the behaviors aren't emergent from the rules.

*"can't be predicted" is a bit loaded and I'm not sure exactly how true it is; they weren't predicted and seem surprising, and probably aren't predictable without running a simulation of the system to see how it behaves.

[Mad Man P]

If you accept that you can describe traffic in terms of quarks then there is no emergence by definition. Emergence by definition is when a system is larger than sum of parts. This is the part that I have issue with since it claims that there exist not a function that relates the system to sum of parts.

the saying is not "larger" but "greater than the sum of its parts" no one is claiming systems can violate the first law of thermodynamics but rather that they can provide better or even unique results.

As a simple analogy imagine an automated factory line that produces cars, if you were to keep all the parts, but disconnect them from each other, they would no longer produce cars.

I would think "able to produce cars" is a tangible property we could refer to as an emergent consequence of putting them together.

However you could take the term "greater" to mean valuing the number of quarks in existence or something silly and end up with "the quarks were merely arranged differently, no new quarks were created" but that would leave you blind to the difference between a car and a pile of junk... which is why no one adopts that untenable perspective and we all agree this qualifies as "greater" than the sum of its parts

[bahman]

If you accept that you can describe traffic in terms of quarks then there is no emergence by definition.
Emergence by definition is when a system is larger than sum of parts. This is the part that I have issue with since it claims that there exist not a function that relates the system to sum of parts.

I don't think "a system [] larger than the sum of parts" is straightforward.

That is what emergence is about.

If the parts have properties that can't be predicted* and are only expressed when arranged into a system, is that system larger than it's parts?

Particle physics is about predicting the properties of parts. The community however failed to describe reality in small scale.

Take Conway's Game of Life as an example. The parts are completely defined by a few short rules, and those rules don't say anything about gliders or glider guns or blinkers etc. And yet we see those systems result from the simple parts, and we can say things about the larger systems that don't reference the parts explicitly and say something interesting and different about the system, e.g. the system will move across the grid.

There's no doubt where the behaviors come from, but at the same time those behaviors are definitely not properties of the parts (because the parts are fully and briefly defined in a few explicit rules). It's just semantic to say that the behaviors aren't emergent from the rules.

*"can't be predicted" is a bit loaded and I'm not sure exactly how true it is; they weren't predicted and seem surprising, and probably aren't predictable without running a simulation of the system to see how it behaves.

All these system are predictable. That is an impression created inside the mind which gives us a sense that there is a specific things in there which are not predictable.

[bahman]

If you accept that you can describe traffic in terms of quarks then there is no emergence by definition. Emergence by definition is when a system is larger than sum of parts. This is the part that I have issue with since it claims that there exist not a function that relates the system to sum of parts.

the saying is not "larger" but "greater than the sum of its parts" no one is claiming systems can violate the first law of thermodynamics but rather that they can provide better or even unique results.

As a simple analogy imagine an automated factory line that produces cars, if you were to keep all the parts, but disconnect them from each other, they would no longer produce cars.

I would think "able to produce cars" is a tangible property we could refer to as an emergent consequence of putting them together.

However you could take the term "greater" to mean valuing the number of quarks in existence or something silly and end up with "the quarks were merely arranged differently, no new quarks were created" but that would leave you blind to the difference between a car and a pile of junk... which is why no one adopts that untenable perspective and we all agree this qualifies as "greater" than the sum of its parts

Could you describe the behavior of the factory in term of its parts? Sure. You can in fact describe the factory's behavior in term of a function. What I am arguing is that function exist. This is not the case when there is an emergence.

[Mad Man P]

Could you describe the behavior of the factory in term of its parts? Sure. You can in fact describe the factory's behavior in term of a function. What I am arguing is that function exist. This is not the case when there is an emergence.

That's why I started by saying this comes across as confused.

You don't seem to be working with the same definition of "emergence" as was intended.

An emergent property would be the assembly of a car... something none of the parts could manage on their own.
Presumably we agree on what happens at an automated factory and that none of the parts could assemble a car on their own, but when put together they can
You don't seem to think that qualifies as an emergent property, yet that's all I've ever understood anyone to mean by that term...

I'd be curious to hear what you think that term means if not that

[Jakob]

Your argument stands except in one case; that of a fundamental property.

What is a fundamental property?

I could say "being".
I have more technical answers. But let's see if they are needed.

If this property arises AS being, in every being as its essence, then emergence is possible.

Well, let's accept that. By emergent we mean that the "being property" is not reducible to the properties of the parts. Now suppose that you remove a part. Suppose that the "being property" vanishes. This means that there exists a function which is 0 or 1 (not being or being) depending if the part is removed or not. This means that the "being property" is reducible to the properties of the parts since there is a function which explains the property of the system in term of properties of parts. No need to say that parts contribute in property of the system through their properties.

What if every part in order to be a discernible thing (namely, a discernible part) needs to share a fundamental property.

Namely a response-pattern to entropy. Some property that guarantees its resistance to being annihilated.

This is the case in hadrons.

[bahman]

Your argument stands except in one case; that of a fundamental property.

What is a fundamental property?

I could say "being".
I have more technical answers. But let's see if they are needed.

Ok and thanks.

If this property arises AS being, in every being as its essence, then emergence is possible.

Well, let's accept that. By emergent we mean that the "being property" is not reducible to the properties of the parts. Now suppose that you remove a part. Suppose that the "being property" vanishes. This means that there exists a function which is 0 or 1 (not being or being) depending if the part is removed or not. This means that the "being property" is reducible to the properties of the parts since there is a function which explains the property of the system in term of properties of parts. No need to say that parts contribute in property of the system through their properties.

What if every part in order to be a discernible thing (namely, a discernible part) needs to share a fundamental property.

The properties of a part can only be known when they are naked. These properties cannot change. The part however seems to have different properties, charge for example can be screened, but that is only an effect due to existence of other things, virtual particles for example.

Namely a response-pattern to entropy. Some property that guarantees its resistance to being annihilated.

Only irreducible thing cannot be annihilated.

This is the case in hadrons.

Hadrons have charge and spin which are simply the sum of charge and spin of quarks within. I am not aware of another property.

[bahman]

Could you describe the behavior of the factory in term of its parts? Sure. You can in fact describe the factory's behavior in term of a function. What I am arguing is that function exist. This is not the case when there is an emergence.

That's why I started by saying this comes across as confused.

You don't seem to be working with the same definition of "emergence" as was intended.

Sorry for not being clear. By emergence I mean that there exist not a function which describe the behavior of new property in term of the properties of the parts.

An emergent property would be the assembly of a car... something none of the parts could manage on their own.
Presumably we agree on what happens at an automated factory and that none of the parts could assemble a car on their own, but when put together they can
You don't seem to think that qualifies as an emergent property, yet that's all I've ever understood anyone to mean by that term...

I'd be curious to hear what you think that term means if not that

That is not something which I call emergent.

[Mad Man P]

Sorry for not being clear. By emergence I mean that there exist not a function which describe the behavior of new property in term of the properties of the parts.

Could you provide a hypothetical example of something which WOULD qualify as an emergent property?

[bahman]

Sorry for not being clear. By emergence I mean that there exist not a function which describe the behavior of new property in term of the properties of the parts.

Could you provide a hypothetical example of something which WOULD qualify as an emergent property?

People claims that consciousness is the result of matter being in specific formation. I am arguing that matter has not such a property nor consciousness can be explained as a function of properties of matter therefore consciousness is not an emergent property.

[Jakob]

What if every part in order to be a discernible thing (namely, a discernible part) needs to share a fundamental property.

The properties of a part can only be known when they are naked. These properties cannot change. The part however seems to have different properties, charge for example can be screened, but that is only an effect due to existence of other things, virtual particles for example.

We agree that durable particles, things that come into existence without mankinds help and stay in existence for longer than a few nanoseconds, can not be split up in particles that have properites that are separate from each other(s properties).

Namely a response-pattern to entropy. Some property that guarantees its resistance to being annihilated.

Only irreducible thing cannot be annihilated.

And no thing is irreducible. But what I meant is that, to annihilate a hadron, youre going to need force. Entropy doesnt annihilate hadrons, even if it does annihilate molecules.

This is the case in hadrons.

Hadrons have charge and spin which are simply the sum of charge and spin of quarks within. I am not aware of another property.

Well there is their mass, to begin with.
But in following of what I said here:

Namely a response-pattern to entropy. Some property that guarantees its resistance to being annihilated.

I refer you back to nuclear strongforce. That is what the pattern of gluon exchange that characterizes the existence of quarks amounts in.

I wish you the best in your endeavor, fellow thinker.
Good luck!

[bahman]

Namely a response-pattern to entropy. Some property that guarantees its resistance to being annihilated.

Only irreducible thing cannot be annihilated.

And no thing is irreducible.

I think that a free entity is irreducible since it is uncaused cause. It is uncaused cause since it can cause uncause cause, so called free decision.

But what I meant is that, to annihilate a hadron, youre going to need force. Entropy doesnt annihilate hadrons, even if it does annihilate molecules.

In the LHC?

[Mad Man P]

People claims that consciousness is the result of matter being in specific formation. I am arguing that matter has not such a property nor consciousness can be explained as a function of properties of matter therefore consciousness is not an emergent property.

ah... so that's where you're going.

These arguments hinge on definitions... you can define consciousness in such a way that matter BY DEFINITION cannot account for it, but vacuous tautologies are a monumental waste of time.

I assume you're not trying to play a language game but instead you want to grapple with reality.
If so it follows you're talking about qualia, the 1st person perception we experience and you can't think of any way to generate that with matter... correct?

[bahman]

People claims that consciousness is the result of matter being in specific formation. I am arguing that matter has not such a property nor consciousness can be explained as a function of properties of matter therefore consciousness is not an emergent property.

ah... so that's where you're going.

These arguments hinge on definitions... you can define consciousness in such a way that matter BY DEFINITION cannot account for it, but vacuous tautologies are a monumental waste of time.

I assume you're not trying to play a language game but instead you want to grapple with reality.

Yes. Please read my signature.

If so it follows you're talking about qualia, the 1st person perception we experience and you can't think of any way to generate that with matter... correct?

Yes. I think that Qualia is generated by mind. It is also experienced by mind. Matter, what exists in outside world, is a mix of minds and Qualia.

[Carleas]

[A system larger than the sum of parts] is what emergence is about.

That may be, but if it isn't clear what that means, then it isn't clear what would qualify as 'emergence'.

[Conway's Game of Life is] predictable.

Note here that if the only way to 'predict' the outcome of an initial starting position is to iterate through the rules, that isn't predicting, that's just running out the game (to call that prediction is like saying that a game of football 'predicts' who will win by returning a winner at the end). A prediction function would be one that takes a matrix of cell values and a number of steps and spits out the end state without computing each intervening step.

One example of a prediction function is things like 'gliders', i.e. given a certain shape, we know that the shape will repeat in a regular way. 'moving' across the grid. The glider isn't based on the rules, the prediction isn't based on the rules, we predict the future state by appeal not to the individual cells, but by appeal to the arrangement of the cells. We observe some higher-order object in the space, and it lets us predict the future state of the game in a way that we can't if we restrict ourselves to descriptions in terms of the parts. That seems to satisfy the proffered definition of emergence.

And I think that's what's happening for consciousness too. We can describe human actions in terms of atoms, and qualia in terms of neural networks, but describing it in terms of subjective experience and thought lets us make reliable predictions by appeal to higher-order objects that aren't explicit in the 'rules' and aren't well predicted without reference to those higher-order objects.

[bahman]

[A system larger than the sum of parts] is what emergence is about.

That may be, but if it isn't clear what that means, then it isn't clear what would qualify as 'emergence'.

To me emergence means that there exist not a function which describe the property of the system in term of properties of parts.

[Conway's Game of Life is] predictable.

Note here that if the only way to 'predict' the outcome of an initial starting position is to iterate through the rules, that isn't predicting, that's just running out the game (to call that prediction is like saying that a game of football 'predicts' who will win by returning a winner at the end). A prediction function would be one that takes a matrix of cell values and a number of steps and spits out the end state without computing each intervening step.

There is a function when there is a set of rules which dictate the motion of a system. We might not be able to find the exact analytical function though. That is why we do simulation.

One example of a prediction function is things like 'gliders', i.e. given a certain shape, we know that the shape will repeat in a regular way. 'moving' across the grid. The glider isn't based on the rules, the prediction isn't based on the rules, we predict the future state by appeal not to the individual cells, but by appeal to the arrangement of the cells. We observe some higher-order object in the space, and it lets us predict the future state of the game in a way that we can't if we restrict ourselves to descriptions in terms of the parts. That seems to satisfy the proffered definition of emergence.

I am afraid that I don't know what you are refereeing in here by gliders. Are you talking about motorless aircraft?

And I think that's what's happening for consciousness too. We can describe human actions in terms of atoms, and qualia in terms of neural networks, but describing it in terms of subjective experience and thought lets us make reliable predictions by appeal to higher-order objects that aren't explicit in the 'rules' and aren't well predicted without reference to those higher-order objects.

I understand the importance of the higher order functioning which is permissible only when there is consciousness. I however don't think that consciousness is a property which is a function of properties of atoms (atoms are not conscious). There was no need for consciousness if consciousness was a function of properties of atoms since the behavior of the brain is also a function of behavior of atoms (following the same type of argument). What seems that it is done in higher order functioning is really done by atoms functioning therefore consciousness is irrelevant. If you are still not satisfied then you need to ask yourself this question that why there is a specific higher functioning rather than any other functioning when we are dealing with a situation. There must be a reason why we function in a specific way rather than any other way. There is a function when there is a reason.