Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!gatech!ncsuvx!news
From: fostel@eos.ncsu.edu (Gary Fostel)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: emergent properties
Message-ID: <1990Nov1.205907.7472@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>
Date: 1 Nov 90 20:59:07 GMT
References: <1990Sep29.213139.2876@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <3499@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <1990Oct26.220658.11281@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <3841@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <1990Oct30.220248.20784@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <4112@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Sender: news@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
Reply-To: fostel@eos.ncsu.edu (Gary Fostel)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Lines: 38


Jim Rheulin at NCR, San Diego, wrote:

>In <1990Oct30.220248.20784@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> fostel@eos.ncsu.edu (Gary
Fostel) >writes:
>
>>The trouble with this dismissal of the "emergence" of gravity is that 
>>the dismissal is predicated upon a theory that has never been demonstrated.
>>I thought we were discussing observed properties of systems.  Unless I am
>>mistaken, there has never, ever, been a demonstration of the existence of
>>a gravitational field due to a single particle.  Not only is this far beyond
>>the sensitivity of current instrumentation, but in fact depending on the
>>theory of gravitation you like, it might not be true anyway. 
>
>True, but the point may have been that the physicist spoke of gravity
>"emerging" from a complex system of particles (much as some cognitive
>scientists claim "intelligence" emerges from a complex system of
>neurons).  Minsky pointed out that this property exists for just two
>particles.  The assuption is that two particles, like two neruons,
>are not a complex enough system to provide "emergence" (just what is
>complex enough is never addressed by the emergites).  Hence whatever
>the property is, it's not emergent.
>
>At least, that's how I read his argument as you posted it.

OK. But ...

I don't think it matters that much whether we are dealling with one particle
or two.  It could be scads of particles.  No one has ever observed gravity
acting on anything less than jillions of particles.  We all beleive it acts
on each particle but that is unfounded.  I don't think there is even any
indirect evidence of gravity until you get to macroscopic sized objects.
The gravitional force is many orders of magnitude weaker than even the
weakest of the other forces.  I don't often find myself disagreeing with
Minsky, but this time I think he's wrong.  

----GaryFostel----                       Department of Computer Science
                                         North Carolina State University