Towards a Logical Definition of Emergence [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: Towards a Logical Definition of Emergence [video]

#11

Post by btbuildem » Fri, Nov 17, 2023, 3:23 PM UTC

reliablereason wrote: post #2

Emergence is simply repeating patterns observed in aggregates. There is nothing that "emerges" in the physical universe, instead things emerge in an observer's model of the world.

> Emergence is simply repeating patterns observed in aggregates

It is precisely the failure of repeating patterns to scale up in aggregates, and a counter-intuitive simplification as a complex system scales up.

> There is nothing that "emerges" in the physical universe

Here's one example: a tornado -- highly unpredictable, one moment we have one set of meteorological conditions, suddenly there is another, drastically different set of measurable conditions.

Please don't spew unsupported absolutes, especially trivially countered ones, this isn't the place for it.

Re: Towards a Logical Definition of Emergence [video]

#12

Post by reliablereason » Fri, Nov 17, 2023, 4:25 PM UTC

joelegner wrote: post #6

reliablereason wrote: post #2

Emergence is simply repeating patterns observed in aggregates. There is nothing that "emerges" in the physical universe, instead things emerge in an observer's model of the world.

Let there be some ants. Let each individual ant act according to local rules. None of the individual ant’s rules say “build an anthill,” yet after a few days there is an anthill. I predict there are many anthills that have never been observed. So we have a fact of nature (anthill exists) that “emerges” from local interactions of ants — without an observer. Where does the above go wrong in your view? Edit: fixed gramm…

In this case you "observed" the anthill by writing about and describing it.

Things emerge in to something. In this case it emerged in to models of the world that exist in mine and your mind.

The pattern that was the anthill exists, but it has not emerged in to something before it has emerged in to a model of something.

So I guess it goes wrong cause we use different definitions for what it means for something to emerge.

On a side note. I am not quite sure what you mean with "a fact of nature", my best guess is something like: it is an axiom of truth that anthills exist. But that does not make sense to me. Maybe it is more like: we observe anthills so they must exist. Idk? Probably not relevant, seams more like you are refuting some postmodern idealistic idea which states that everything is mind, which I don’t subscribe to.

Re: Towards a Logical Definition of Emergence [video]

#13

Post by reliablereason » Fri, Nov 17, 2023, 4:35 PM UTC

btbuildem wrote: post #11

reliablereason wrote: post #2

Emergence is simply repeating patterns observed in aggregates. There is nothing that "emerges" in the physical universe, instead things emerge in an observer's model of the world.

> Emergence is simply repeating patterns observed in aggregates It is precisely the failure of repeating patterns to scale up in aggregates, and a counter-intuitive simplification as a complex system scales up. > There is nothing that "emerges" in the physical universe Here's one example: a tornado -- highly unpredictable, one moment we have one set of meteorological conditions, suddenly there is another, drastically…

You are making straw-man arguments, where you assume that your interpretation of my text is what I meant.

I could have been more detailed in my comment, but that was not where my mind where when I wrote my comment. And in my defense the only part of your comment that I really understand thoroughly is the last paragraph, so I guess this holds true for both of us, we could both be more descriptive.

Re: Towards a Logical Definition of Emergence [video]

#14

Post by ProllyInfamous » Fri, Nov 17, 2023, 4:37 PM UTC

ithkuil wrote: post #4

reliablereason wrote: post #2

Emergence is simply repeating patterns observed in aggregates. There is nothing that "emerges" in the physical universe, instead things emerge in an observer's model of the world.

Technically true, as long as it doesn't devolve in postmodernism absurdity A chair doesn't really exist, it's just a collection of atoms arranged in a way that can sit on it and along with the gazillions of other arrangements of atoms that can do the same thing we call it a "chair" because it's a very useful way to call things. There is really not much interesting in the gazillions of microscopic variations of placem…

"Everything we call `real` is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."

—Niels Bohr (Physicist)

As a beekeeper, I am truly humbled at our own specie's usual hubris in exploring "meaning" beyond "just is."