Hi Lawrence, hi John,

Sorry for the delay. I comment some answers in the same post.

Lawrence, you say

Hard emergence is either something really miraculous and thus not really in the 
domain of physics, or it is something we might call a miracle because we really 
do not understand it.

So we agree. Ah, I see you did find an example. See below.

John, you say

​> ​Bruno: You might try to give at least one example of hard emergence

​One molecule of water can't be wet but 6.02*10^ 23 molecules can be. And H2O 
at 31 degrees F has none of the properties of a liquid but at 33 degrees F 
those same molecules have all the properties of a liquid; although usually 
emergent properties don't appear as​ ​suddenly as that, it is more smooth and 
continuous. Day is very different from night but there isn't an exact point 
where one turns into the other. There is nothing mysterious ​or​ miraculous 
going on its just that human language puts concepts into groups called "words" 
but the real world is messy​ ​so​ ​there are often intermediate​ ​cases where 
its not clear what the correct word should be; an​ ​80 pound man is clearly 
thin​​ and a 800 pound man is clearly fat but there are values between those 
extremes where reasonable people can differ on what the correct word should be. 

I don’t see the exemple of hard emergence.

I think that “hard emergence” is a spurious concept like the one used to hide 
the mind-body problem. In that case it reflects at least the understanding that 
mind does not come out of the brain like wetness comes out from the many water 
molecules. In the second case we stay in the third person discourse, but in the 
first, we must explain a relationship between two types of points of view (and 
with mechanism, it cannot be a one-one relation, but a modality related to 


It occurred to me a case of hard emergence. The outcome of a quantum 
measurement is such. I have iterated how I think this is connected to 
self-reference, ]

Nice! Is it related to the self-duplication? With the MW formulation of QM,, 
and simplifying a little bit to avoid being too much technical, when you look 
at schroedinger cat, you duplicate yourself, as the duplication of the cat is 
linearly inherited by you when observing the cat, and is, in relevance with 
computationalism, an example of self-duplication. A classical self-duplication, 
via artificial brain or bi-teleportation gives the same “miracle”, or 
1p-account of “miracle”. Of course there is no miracle at all, and then “hard 
emergence” is again relegate to the “hard problem” of relating first person 
experience and third person description (see my paper to get the point that 
with Mechanism, this cannot be one-one).

… [so I will not repeat that here. However, the outcome is completely random 
and has no causal basis. ]...

I agree that the outcome is completely random, but the randomness itself as a 
causal base: the numerical identity of the “copies” in front of different 
inputs. That exists a lot in arithmetic which emulates all computations with a 
non trivial redundancy. That happens in the biological reality too, in many 
variate ways.

… It emerges for no particular reason, such as initial conditions, and is as I 
see it a complete hard emergence.


It is hard in the 3p sense that it is absolutely indeterminate. Exactly like in 
the case of the amoeba, or the digital duplication of oneself made possible in 
the Digital Mechanist frame and/or in Arithmetic.

That is not "hard emergence", it is rather simple to explain by our first 
person indeterminacy, that is the fact that a universal machine cannot know 
which computations support them.

“Hard emergence” would be like adding the conscious attribute of a person 
“living” that randomness, but then “hard” just refers to the hardness of the 
mind-body problem.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to