Eric, I think it's a fine example.
It's an example of static emergence--the same sort of thing that happens when one puts sodium and chlorine together to get salt; the same sort of thing that happens when one puts carbon atoms together to get a diamond; the same sort of thing that happens when one puts lumber, nails, drywall, copper piping, etc. together to get a house, etc. In all those cases emergence is the result of building a static structure of separate elements. Emergence is static when the structure is at an energy equilibrium within an energy well--i.e., the structure doesn't require the continual importation of energy to persist. Deconstruction of the emergent entity does require the addition of energy. In the case of the sweater, for example, energy is needed to unravel the string. The sweater is well enough knit together that it won't fall apart on its own but must be pulled apart. -- Russ A On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > Eric, > > I like the example. Thank you. > > Doug > > I stipulate that you don't like this topic. But wait a minute! You > responded to the thread!? That's odd! > > If interested, the reading this week is the aforementioned Bedau. > > Best, > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([email protected]) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Douglas Roberts <[email protected]> > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<[email protected]> > *Sent:* 9/25/2009 8:22:04 AM > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Inquiry to Emergence Group > > Groan. > > What possible gain will come of trying to add yet more baggage to that > already overloaded, mythical, magical "emergence" word by trying to > force-fit the process of knitting a sweater on to it? > > --Doug > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:08 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Greetings, >> This morning, I saw an interesting emergence problem on a children's >> television show, and thought I would send a query to the group. >> >> As is prone to happen, a character received a knitted sweater, which >> promptly caught on something and began to unravel. By the time they noticed >> it was just one long string. They then followed the string back, ending up >> with a large ball of string. They had the string, which is all the sweater >> was; but of course, they did not in any reasonable sense have "the sweater". >> >> >> I was wondering how the different authors in the book would describe this >> situation. In particular, it would seem natural to say that the string isn't >> the sweater BECAUSE the sweater is "emergent". >> >> Hopefully that example is of interest to more than just me, >> >> Eric >> >> P.S. Look Nick, I maintained your thread dominance request! >> >> = >> > > ============================================================ > 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
