> Alpha wrote:
>>> Alpha wrote:
>>>>> feedbackdroid wrote:
>>>>>>> feedbackdroid wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Read any dictionary for the definition of emergence. It will state that
>>>>>>>>> emergence occurs when a new property arises out of nowhere in complex
>>>>>>>>> systems whose constituent parts do not have this property. Something
>>>>>>>>> arising from nothing is magic, see? This is what most people including
>>>>>>>>> your self believe.
>>>>>>>> Ooof. Try reading the scientific literature on complexity theory,
>>>>>>>> instead of the dictionary.
>>>>>>> Why? This whole sub thread I started dealt with the commonly held idea
>>>>>>> of emergence. Definitions are by definition commonly held notions about
>>>>>>> a particular thing.
>>>>>> Yes, better to alk about commonly held notions, rather than science.
>>>>>> DOH.
>>>>> Last I looked this was being discussed in philosophy groups not science
>>>>> groups. And as far as I can tell the "scientific" notion of emergence is
>>>>> exactly the same as the commonly held notion.
>>>> And you can tell only that far because you are ignornat in these
>>>> matters.
>>> So why is it you refuse to explain the "scientific" notion of emergence?
>>> All notions of emergence require getting something from nothing.
>>> Something arises that was not there before.
>
>> While that part is true.
>
>>> That requires a magical
>>> process bendajo.
>
>> That part (conclusion) is not.
>
>> There is something going on we do not know what. Â That it is not an
>> illusion, is shown by mathematical descriptions that comport with
>> observations of the phenomena. Â ANd it is clear from the math (See
>> either Biophysics of Computation by Koch or any of Alwayn Scott's
>> recent work, or even Holland's work.)
>
> For simpler cases of emergence like hardness we do know what is going on
> and we know that the emergent property is in fact an illusion.
It is not an illusion - it is simply explainable.
> Some like
> you, want to sidestep this fact and instead embrace the ridiculous
> notion that new properties in more complex cases magically spring out of
> nowhere merely because we don't yet understand the actual processes
> involved.
Emergence is not another word for magic. That is *your* error in
understanding.
>
>> Was the Universe's creation magical. There was no time, thence there
>> was time. Â There were no "particles", thence there were "particles".
>
> Show me any kind of evidence or even a valid theory that says the
> Universe was ever created. The notion that the Universe, the sum total
> of everything, could be created from nothing is completely incompatible
> with the foundations of modern physics.
Do you realize that accoring to theories of the singularity, that time
did not exist in that singularity and that it aronse *from nothing*!!
So much for your ridiculous contentions and mistaken ideas.
> You don't seem to realize that
> before the big bang the Universe was still there as a "singularity". The
> amount of energy then and now is the same. Its always the same. It will
> be the same when it next collapses back into a "singularity".
You are not up on current events; inflationary Universe wherein
Universe is expanding at ever-increasing velocity may not collapse
again.
> The big
> bang did not create the Universe, it merely changed its form.
Subterfuge. Besides - how do you know - were you there?
>
>> Your conflation of "the state of not knowing with "magical" is
>> ridiculous.
>
> I made no such conflation that is your straw man only. Once again
> bendajo, the creation from nothing is the magical part.
A thought of E=MC^^2 ex nihilo via Einstein is thee creation of an
idea where no such idea was before.
You are wrong again as I just provided a datum that shows your
hypothesis to be incorrect. Not to mention all the other instances of
emergence in Universe.
>
>>>> Science (and how it treats emergent phenomena) is not magic, does not
>>>> include magical things and strives to eliminate illusions (magic) when
>>>> it finds them.
>>> Yes but incompetent "scientists" like to believe in ridiculous fairy
>>> tales like emergence. A real scientist would say "hmmm when these
>>> components combine and interact a new property appears to arise. But how
>>> can something arise out of nothing?" The incompetent "scientist" says
>>> "wow, when these components combine and interact a new property arises
>>> out of nowhere. Lets call this amazing phenomena emergence."
>
>> Only in your mind does emergence conflate with magic.
>
> So you are saying if only one person entertains an idea it's wrong? The
> old argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.
You are right - ther may be more delusional people such as yourself in
Unviverse - some of which have posted here before.
>
>>>>>>>> The component parts - in isolation - simply do whatever they do on an
>>>>>>>> individual basis. Howevever, once you put 1000s or millions or
>>>>>>>> billions of the simple components "together", then you get the
>>>>>>>> interesting stuff occurring.
>>>>>>>> It's not nowheres at all, it's local and global interactions of simple
>>>>>>>> components.
>>>>>>> Don't you see? You are still saying the new property magically arises
>>>>>>> out of nowhere.
>>>>>> Can you not read?
>>>>> You might ask yourself that.
>>>> I woudl ask you if you understand anything that you read?
>>> I understand what I've read about the big bang and virtual particles.
>>> Clearly you don't, remember. Maybe its not me with the problem.
>
>> OK, tell us where the virtual particles come from in your own words.
>
> I don't know or care where they come from. What on Earth is your point?
> I do know and all competent physicists know that virtual particles don't
> violate conservation laws as you so erroneously believe.
I never said they do (violate conservation of energy/momentum etc.);
in fact, some physicists beleive they exist, temporarily, as an
accounting trick that reality uses to ensure things work out right WRT
the QM/QFT equations. The interpretation is that such tricks appear
and disappear from where and into whence we do not know.
The point is that they, along with emergent phenomena, are examples of
things, processes, objects, relationships etc., that arise wherein no
such things, processes, objects, relationships
were immanent in the preceding state of the Universe.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>> The new properties arise out of INTERACTIONS between component parts.
>>>>> Oh of course how silly of me. The new properties magically arise out of
>>>>> nowhere when component parts INTERACT. Like when the hardness property
>>>>> magically arises out of nowhere when iron atoms "cling" together.
>>>>>> If I blast you in the face with my fist, is that an interaction
>>>>>> between parts, or just magic?
>>>>> An interaction. Your point?
>>>>>> There is more to physics than just things.
>>>>> Thanks for clearing that up.
>>>>>>> Â All components have basic properties. When you combine
>>>>>>> many components together and they interact, the new properties are
>>>>>>> merely illusions caused by our perceptual limitations. Look at the new
>>>>>>> property under the right microscope and you will see it can be explained
>>>>>>> by the properties of the components.
>>>>>> I suspect that large welt on your cheek is more than an illusion.
>>>>> And what is the basis of that belief? Blind faith?
>>>> You seem to believe that bona fide scientific treatments of complex
>>>> systems is akin to a magician fooling the public with illusions. Â It
>>>> is you that have the blinders on!
>>> I believe nothing of the sort, that's your strawman.
>
>> Nope; all your protestations so far, including your own statements
>> show otherwise. You conflate Bantum Book and non-scholarly treatments
>> of emergence with bona fide mathematical treatments of complex
>> dynamical non-linear/chaotic adaptive syustems, like autopoietic
>> systems.
>
>> BTW, autopoiesis is an emergent system phenomena; you get lots of
>> operators, products and structure where there were none before and
>> there is absolutely *no* antecedents one can show cause such. Â Care to
>> explain it?
>
> Similarly in a block of iron you get a property, hardness, which is not
> a property of iron atoms. It's an illusion bendajo.
WTF! You seem to *believe* that anything that is not a property of
"atoms" does not exist. What about things existing prior to atoms
forming?
And if hardness, which is a spectral property (that is, degree of
hardness lies on a spectrum of values), which values are interpreted
values by some cognizing entity; that is harness is a relation between
an observer and an observed that does arise when some cognizant entity
perceives and thence forms a concept of relative hardness by, say,
kicking the table.
Are you saying that since hardness does not exist in individual iron
atoms(which I also dispute - your did not reduce far enough "down"),
then it cannot exist in a combination of iron atoms? You are so
confused that you think a single iron atom cannot be perceived with a
suitable instrument, as being something with a hardness (albeit
something too small to be realistically kicked by a human, the human's
"instrumeent" - say a scanning electron microsope, or an atom smasher
etc.).
>
> --
> Skeptopathy (pathological skepticism)
> the unscientific belief that unusual phenomena are bunk.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
