Emergence definitely applies to properties. Of course an object is characterised by its properties.
Is a phonon and emergent property of a lattice, or an object in its own right? It seems to depend on what level of description is being employed. Cheers On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:56:32PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > The first step in any conversation in any sane about emergence is, I think, > to decide what sorts of things-that-we-refer-to-with-nouns are going to be > candidates for the predicate "emergent". Objects? Or properties. (There > are other choices but I forget them). Once we fix on "properties", I think > our job becomes easier, because it seems to me self evident that almost > system we might discuss has some emergent and some non-emergent properties. > Breadiness is a wonderful example of an emergent property. It clearly > depends on how you arrange the ingredients (you have to mix them) and the > order of the processes you apply to the ingredients (best you should bake > them after you mix them). > > So, would agree with you if X is specified as a property in your formula. > > N > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([email protected]) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ERIC P. CHARLES > To: Nicholas Thompson > Cc: friam > Sent: 7/9/2009 10:39:56 PM > Subject: [FRIAM] Emergence and word magic > > > Trying to be more succinct than my last post. I am of the opinion that: > > "X is emergent.", as a strong claim, is surely word magic. Indeed, everything > is emergent (minus the bare contents of some imaginary lowest level), so no > insight is gained from the labeling - no explanation is added. > > In contrast, "X emerges from the combination of A, B, and C, when conditions > P and Q are met," is a great thing to be able to say. It can answer crucial > questions, can lead to great research programs, etc. > > Of course, one could drop the word entirely. In that case, one would just say > "X is the combination of A, B, and C, when conditions P and Q are met." > However.... uhm.... > however... > Damn. > I thought I could come up with a good "however". Then I deleting seven things > that seemed very convincing before I wrote them, but not afterwards. I can > only hope someone on the list can come up with one, because I really like > talking about emergence. > > Hoping for help, > > Eric > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 10:28 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Glen, > > Thanks for your thoughts, here. > > The correspondence got so untidy below that I thought best to restate the > position as sharpened by your critique. > > I would say that, contra Atkins Physical Chemistry and many other experts, > a system is more than just any old thing we happen to be talking about. > To be a system, the thing we are talking about must be *organized*. > Another way of saying this is that all systems have emergent properties: > i.e., properties that arise from the *internal* arrangement or ordering of > their parts. Arrangements or ordering of parts that are true of all of > those parts are not internal. I don't think your critique is specific in > any way to the problem of defining the emergent properties of things It > relates generally to the definition of the primitive, "any old > thing". Is a > lens cloud an object? Is an ocean wave an object? A sand dune? An > organism, for that matter? It comes up any time we try to justify the > use of any concrete noun. I believe that "Thing" can be a primitive > and we > can still have a useful discussion of what the emergent properties of a > thing are, or are not. An insistence on rigorous closure would be the end > of all conversation, because we never would be able to meet the standard. > Which, come to think of it, may be your point. You are arguing that the > conversation we are trying to have is impossible? > > If you want to see the verbal train wreck that preceded this summary, look > below, but I don't recommend it. > > Oh by the way: do you have the Bedau and Phillips book? Do you think it > might be possible to have an international webSeminar on it? Colloquium? > What would that look like? > > > > Nick > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([email protected]) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: glen e. p. ropella <[email protected]> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[email protected]> > > Date: 7/9/2009 11:06:37 AM > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Emergence and explanation > > > > Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09-07-09 06:52 AM: > > > Also, it depends on a clear understanding of what it is to be a > > > "property of a part". I think to be a property of a part > means that > > > you cannot mention any other part in the description of that part. > > > > Excellent! This demonstrates quite well why it is incoherent to say > > that a systemic property is non-emergent. > > nst==>Right! But doesnt this mean we have to somehow get our colleagues > to stop using word "system" to refer to "whatever we are talking > about". > <==nst > > It is logically impossible to > > describe a _part_ of a system without describing the context or > > environment into which that part fits, namely the other parts of the > system. > > > > Further, to describe any _unit_... any object with a boundary around it, > > you must distinguish that unit from the ambience around it. I.e. you > > can't describe the object without at least partially describing the > > NOT-object. So, the root of the incoherence of "emergent" lies > in an > > inability to define a closure. (Unleash the Rosenites! ;-) > > nst==> Sorry, I didn't follow this last bit. Let's assume that we can get > the rest of the world to go along with our understanding of "system". > Are > you arguing here that every object has to be a system? I.e., every object > has emergent properties? Hmm. I am wondering whether I agree with > this..................................... > > I am tempted to argue that an object is a "pile of stuff that moves around > together" Hmmmm. No, Too weak, because if a bulldozer comes along and > picks up my pile of stuff and moves it to a new place, I may be tempted to > claim that this object is no object at all because "accidental". Is > a > sand dune an object? Is a lens cloud an object? > > When I claimed that an emergent property of a whole is one that arises from > the arrangement or ordering of the presentation of its parts I was not > speaking of any arrangement that is true of all the parts. So, for > instance, if all the parts are accelerating at the same speed relative to > other wholes, this does not consist of an arrangement or ordering for the > purposes of the definition. <===nst. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, "being on the left" or "being added to the pile > first" are not > > > properly properties of parts. > > to > > And neither is position or momentum because they both have to be defined > > _relative_ to something, trivially to an arbitrary vector space origin, > > non-trivially to other particles. > > nst==><==nst > > e. Unless you're treating the particle > > as a system, itself. And then position and momentum are emergent > > properties of the sub-particle components. So, either way, they are a > > result of the systems organization and the interaction of their > components. > > > > Emergence is a trivial (but not entirely useless) word except in > the > > sense of emergency: "A serious situation or occurrence that happens > > unexpectedly and demands immediate action", which boils down to > "poorly > > understood" or, at least, unpredictable. > > > > -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > Eric Charles > > Professional Student and > Assistant Professor of Psychology > Penn State University > Altoona, PA 16601 > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [email protected] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
