Talk:Emergence (biology): Difference between revisions
imported>Daniel Mietchen m (Talk:Emergence (Biology) moved to Talk:Emergence (biology): naming conventions) |
imported>John R. Brews (→Skeptics: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== Skeptics == | |||
Hi Anthony: | |||
While it is beyond debate that systems can be described in language that has no meaning when applied to their constituent subsystems, things like temperature and possibly consciousness, the idea of emergence seems to be just another name for these system properties with the addition of some "magical" elements about the amazing appearance of new properties. To my mind the microscopic behavior of atoms in a gas is more fundamental than some average that we call "temperature", or some property that we call "heat". It is obvious that [[thermodynamics]] gets along with such concepts just fine, and it doesn't have to refer to its underpinnings in [[statistical mechanics]]. However, the use of thermodynamics to explain a situation instead of a complete microscopic analysis based upon atomic motions or maybe the [[Standard model]] is simply an economy of thought, made necessary by the limited capacity of the human mind and its computer agents, and not the emergence of a whole greater than the sum of its parts. | |||
I'd argue that the notion of " inexplicably unpredicted novel properties, functions and behaviors, ones not observed in the system's subsystems and their components, and not explainable or predictable from complete understanding the components' properties/functions/behaviors considered in isolation from the system that embeds them." is a set with zero members. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 14:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:00, 27 August 2012
Skeptics
Hi Anthony:
While it is beyond debate that systems can be described in language that has no meaning when applied to their constituent subsystems, things like temperature and possibly consciousness, the idea of emergence seems to be just another name for these system properties with the addition of some "magical" elements about the amazing appearance of new properties. To my mind the microscopic behavior of atoms in a gas is more fundamental than some average that we call "temperature", or some property that we call "heat". It is obvious that thermodynamics gets along with such concepts just fine, and it doesn't have to refer to its underpinnings in statistical mechanics. However, the use of thermodynamics to explain a situation instead of a complete microscopic analysis based upon atomic motions or maybe the Standard model is simply an economy of thought, made necessary by the limited capacity of the human mind and its computer agents, and not the emergence of a whole greater than the sum of its parts.
I'd argue that the notion of " inexplicably unpredicted novel properties, functions and behaviors, ones not observed in the system's subsystems and their components, and not explainable or predictable from complete understanding the components' properties/functions/behaviors considered in isolation from the system that embeds them." is a set with zero members. John R. Brews 14:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)