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
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
… 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
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.