Hello Russell,
Sum of the parts is more metaphoric than literal. IMHO, the key to
the kingdom is emergence, and nonlinearity is only necessary to
I used to throw around the word emergence around until I noticed
that I used it there where I did not understand what was really going
on, like in:
Yes, there is an enormous amount of confused writings about
emergence, but no this doesn't mean emergence isn't a well-defined and
meaningful term.
I think the best introduction to this topic is my paper on complexity
and emergence, precisely because it is concise and to the
point. However, there
OK - I'll bite. What does a RMAR think? I ask, because your last question to
me at Wedtech (So Robert, ARE you a materialist?) sent me scurrying to my
reference books from which I'm only just emerging and - apparently - I'm a
glutton for punishment.
And in answer to your question, yes I am; in
I would contend that this criticism may well be valid for certain
forms literary criticism, but only when the author is unaware of the
precise mathematical or scientific definitions of the terms. I have
seen the terms nonlinear, reductionism, emergence and
complexity all abused to lend some kind
Doug,
Well, I think the better choice is to try to understand why English
needs the word 'emerge' to letting us talk about the world. Emerging
is appearing from nowhere, or coming out of the shadows or passing
through an opening or becoming fully formed. The last one there points
to what we
Well, Robert, as it happens the RMAR rant for which I have already apologized,
never made it to the list. In the first place I had the devil's own time
sending it out of my machine, and by the time I managed to send it to the list,
it had magically tripled itself in length, so the List
I disagree. Some counterexamples.
Game of Life is not a growth process. Yet it exhibits clear emergence
in the form of gliders. So you supposed connection is one-sided at best.
Whilst most growth processes involving interacting particles will
produce emergence, if the particles do not interact,
Glen,
I think that's a very consistent argument, and very similar to the one
Bohr used as the basis for the Copenhagen convention and dumping
Einstein's idea of the physical world. As I recall, the argument was
that science is information and so nothing exists for science except
what exists as
