Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cscs!csmith From: csmith@cscs.UUCP (Craig E. Smith) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Emergent Properties Message-ID: <1990Nov5.021135.3749@cscs.UUCP> Date: 5 Nov 90 02:11:35 GMT References: <1990Oct12.214636.7945@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <30@tdatirv.UUCP> <1990Oct19.201604.7280@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <3369@aipna.ed.ac.uk> <1990Oct26.214354.11063@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <3383@aipna.ed.ac.uk> <1990Oct31.001104.22908@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <1990Oct31.102704.18335@csc Organization: CS Computer Systems, Hudson, MA, USA Lines: 80 In aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger) writes: >In article <1990Nov2.103219.24132@cscs.UUCP> csmith@cscs.UUCP (Craig E. Smith) writes: > It seems to me that the idea of emergence (at least in the way I have > most commonly seen the term used) is a lot like religion, a convenient > way to explain things that are either too complicated, or about which > we have too little information to adequately understand. If you think > you have a system which is more than the sum of its parts, then probably > you are either overlooking some of the parts, or you are arbitrarily > defining an axiomatic property which coincides with the properties > possessed by the system. >I am amazed by the fact that a view like this can be held! It >indicates an urgent need to inform on recent (last 20 years, let's >say) developments in nonlinear science and mathematics. There are many >fine *analytical* folk in this necessarily experimental field, who are >uncomfortable as anybody else is about not being able to predict the >manifold unexpected behavior of nonlinear systems. There are nonlinear >systems where one can make piecewise linear approximations to the >system and study them from the "bottom-up", but in general >*superposition* does not hold for nonlinear systems. The method is to >first observe the emergent behavior *experimentally* - often using the >computer as a virtual reality - and build the route to its emergence >after the fact. I do not see why this is such a sticky point. I should >also mention that generic motifs are to be found in emergent >properties across many nonlinear systems, and these will probably >become part of a established theory in the decades to come. Nonlinear >science and mathematics does not halt because of the lack of such a >theory, and the many fine researchers in the field of nonlinear >science do not invoke mysticism, but they must observe first, be >amazed, and *then* explain. This particular and mandatory process of >investigating nonlinear behavior is the setting for the term >"emergence". Pure mathematics is not untouced by this either: > ... It is possible that my idea of the definition of emergence is off, because I base it only on things I have seen people say here in recent postings. If so what is your precise definition of emergence, and emergent properties? It seems to me that you are implying exactly what I said, that calling something an emergent property is only saying that you don't know how it works, or are unable to adequately describe it. Is emergence simply a standard term used to describe something not yet understood, or is it something more? Just because you cannot understand something doesn't mean it is mystic. It only means you are not omniscient. It doesn't make me very uncomfortable that their are things which we cannot explain, although I would like to have an explanation for everything. As much as we may dislike the fact, the human brain is finite, and has a limited capacity for understanding, and processing information, even when assisted by a computer. Many of the things that we now think of as emergent will later be explained, and thus become non-emergent, while others will never be explained, and will remain emergent. I don't think this should necessarily have any affect on the general advancement of science, and I don't see where anything you have said contradicts my statement. There seem to be two main cases where emergence is invoked. One is where we start with an observation of something physical or logical, where we don't have enough information, or the mental capacity to completely understand it, and the other is where we start with a fuzzy definition of a general property such as intelligence, consciousness, or memory, and try to analyze it from specific examples. The first case is only a matter of gaining more knowledge or insight about a particular phenomenon or structure, but the second is a problem of trying to determine specific information about something which is poorly defined in the first place. >... This does not mean that the >universe and mathematics are lawless, it means that the laws of a >different kind apply; statistical laws." The universe has no laws, it only exhibits behaviors. Scientific laws are strictly man made constructions designed to approximate and predict those behaviors. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you want a picture of the future, | Internet: csmith@cscs.UUCP imagine a boot stomping on a human | UUCP: ... uunet!cscs!csmith face - forever. - George Orwell |---------------------------------