Looks good to me. I'm supposing that this can all be edited later if we wish so that this sentence, for example. may or may not get into the final version.
I'm realizing that I've immediately started to feel self-conscious about what I'm writing. But if we allow for editing, that feeling will probably recede. NST===> Now we can PUSH. <===nst Speaking of pushing, the thing about pressure is that it seems like one of the standard examples of emergence. It's emergence at a relatively simple level--what I call static emergence--but emergence nevertheless. You did point out that it depends on the gas being inside the container. But is that enough for it to pass the test of being dependent on arrangement? Pressure is a property of what? Not of the gas and the container but only of the gas in a confined area. The mechanism of confinement is presumably not relevant. According to Eric Weisstein, pressure is force per unit area<http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Pressure.html>, which I think is the standard definition. So what does it mean to ask whether pressure is an emergent property? What does it mean to say that pressure is a property at all? Presumably it means that it is a property of whatever is applying a force to an area. The only reason we can talk about force per unit area is that we have statistically eliminated/aggregated the effects of the individual collisions of the gas molecules with the surface. So pressure would seem to be an emergent property (intuitively understood) of a gas that is understood scientifically by factoring out(!) the specific arrangement of elements. That seems to be where the contradiction arises. It's exactly the opposite of requiring that emergence depend (explicitly) on arrangements in time or space. What about other static properties? What about hardness? Steven Weinberg notes that hardness is an emergent property of diamonds -- and that they have that property because of the way the carbon molecules are arranged. But the reason an object has a property is different from the property itself. If one wants to talk only about a property itself, a property that (let's assume) could be implemented in a number of different ways, then the particular way hardness is implemented in diamonds need not be fundamental to the property of hardness. So again, it seems that the property of hardness (as distinct from the mechanism of its implementation) factors out time and space. That, of course, is my position. A property is emergent if it is a property of a level of abstraction. It makes no difference (according to me) how that property is implemented. Presumably a level of abstraction could be implemented in any number of ways. To take an example from my own field, many devices are Turing complete, meaning that they are capable of computing any computable function. Being Turing complete is a property. Is it emergent? Not according to the requirement that it depends on an arrangement of time and space. There are numerous different ways of building Turing complete devices. Perhaps each one depends on a particular arrangement of component elements. But no particular arrangement is essential to being Turing complete. -- Russ On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > This is good Russ; we are getting somewhere. we have locked horns. Now > we can PUSH. > > Please see below. > > N > > > > 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/> > http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe] > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Russ Abbott <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *Cc: *nthompson <[email protected]>; ERIC P. CHARLES <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > *Sent:* 11/8/2009 11:06:43 AM > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?" > > OK. Then we have to ask what we mean by a property. > > NST===>Agreed. And to be honest, I dont have an ambient definition. So I > guess I will have to accept yours. <===nst > > One standard definition is that a property is a predicate, i.e., a function > mapping a thing to True or False. It then seems that as I mentioned before, > according to the proposed definition, non-emergent properties are those that > have factored out dependencies on the arrangement or timing of the elements > that make up the whole [thing] -- a standard example being mass. > > So is that approach as good, i.e., to define the property (of properties) > of being non-emergent. A property is non-emergent if it has factored out any > dependencies on arrangement ... . > > NST===>Agreed again. You lay out pefectly Wimsatt's definition of the > complement of emergence ... aggregativity. <===nst > > I put it that way because if we suppose that we are talking about > "reality," which is at one basic level an arrangement of stuff in time and > space, then when we do science or make other abstractions about the world, > we sometime factor out features of the world that we find can be ignored for > certain purposes. When we can make such abstractions and they turn out to > be useful, we have made a scientific advance. > > NST===>Again. Perfect Wimsatt. I am completely on board. <===nst > > So I'm not criticizing doing this: mass in Newtonian physics has worked > quite well. But doesn't this imply that according to the proposed > definition, emergent properties are those that haven't (completely) factored > out that aspect of reality? > > NST===> Exactly. Now we get to the hard part. The part of Wimsatt's > article where he might be saying that one can only do science on > non-emergent properties. I am so old and forgetful that I will have to go > back and look, but this was a part of the paper we didnt discuss at length > in the seminar and I may not have "gotten" it. <===nst > > Would Newtonian momentum be non-emergent because it depends on > directionality (arrangement) and speed (which depends on time)? > > NST===> Oh Gosh. I need to specify "arrangement" dont I? Ugh. In other > words, just saying that all the parts are in one place is not an adequate > use of "arrangement" for W-emergence to work. I have to talk about relative > arrangement ... internal arrangement.... . I wonder what trouble THAT gets > me into. <===nst > > How about statistical properties, which factor out arrangement and time? > Wouldn't the proposed definition say that pressure, for example, is > non-emergent because it doesn't depend on arrangement or time? > > NST===> I think any "symmetrical" arrangement (in that mindblowing stupid > way that physicists abuse that word) of particles could not be the basis of > emergence. So, cautiously, I think I would have to agree that pressure is > not an emergent property of the gas, though,, of course it is an emergent > property of gas+vessel. I guess. <===nst > > NST===>Have I walked into a crucial contradiction, here? I feel the > vultures circling overhead. <===nst > > > -- Russ A > > > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Nicholas Thompson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Russ, >> >> I said: So, I suggest we define an emergent property as one that depends >> on the arrangement or timing of the elements that make up the whole. >> >> You said: According to the proposed definition of emergence that >> page--with its component letters--is emergent. >> >> I say: But a page is not a PROPERTY. I am prepared to stipulate that >> under "my" defintion (Wimsatt's definition) a great many boring properties >> are emergent, but you are taking it too far. It does have to be a property >> and the property cannot be a restatement of the arrangement or ordering of >> the elements that is the occasion for the emergence. And I do stipulate >> that using W.'s definition I will later have to shoulder the burden of >> identifying which sorts of emergence are interesting. >> >> 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/> >> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe] >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Russ Abbott <[email protected]> >> *To: *[email protected];nthompson <[email protected]> >> *Cc: *ERIC P. CHARLES <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> *Sent:* 11/8/2009 12:18:51 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?" >> >> I don't think Eric's point goes very far. A page with letters on it has >> letters as elements. According to the proposed definition of emergence that >> page--with its component letters--is emergent. Also, it doesn't matter >> whether the letters are arranged to have a meaning--in English or any other >> language. Any random collection of letters is emergent according to the >> proposed definition. It doesn't seem particularly useful to me to say that. >> >> -- Russ A >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Yeah. Like Eric Said! >>> >>> n >>> >>> 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/> >>> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* ERIC P. CHARLES <[email protected]> >>> *To: *Russ Abbott <[email protected]> >>> *Cc: *[email protected]; [email protected] >>> *Sent:* 11/7/2009 7:09:10 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?" >>> >>> In an attempt to defend Nick's definition (though I liked it better when >>> he offered the categories of definitions than when he tried to pick one as >>> proper): >>> >>> I suspect the statement "the series of letters in this sentence depends >>> on the series of letters in this sentence", doesn't work, because the >>> letters are not an element of the letters. That is, the definition offered >>> requires a statement about something and its elements, not something and >>> itself. Thus, you would need to say that "the sentence depends on the series >>> of letters in the sentence", which is not terribly interesting to me, but is >>> certainly not a tautology or otherwise trivial. >>> >>> The only way I can see for you to try to argue back is to place especial >>> emphasis on "the series" is the first phrase and "the letters" in the >>> second. However, as soon as you are willing to consider "the sequence" as a >>> real entity existing on a higher level, you are admitting emergence, and so >>> the claim is not trivial (i.e., you have implicitly admitted from the start >>> that "a sequence" is a variety of emergent). >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 08:35 PM, *Russ Abbott <[email protected]>*wrote: >>> >>> If something satisfies a definition (X is emergent if the elements of x >>> are dependent on their arrangement ...) then what sense does it make to say >>> that the definition doesn't apply to if it's satisfied trivially? It's still >>> satisfied. >>> >>> (Of course the dirt in your garden is also emergent under this >>> criterion.) >>> >>> It would seem that every property that doesn't abstract away arrangement >>> and time becomes emergent. The mass of an aggregation is not emergent >>> because mass abstracts away arrangement and time. >>> >>> -- Russ A >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >>> [email protected]<#124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_> >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> The arrangement is indeed dependent on the arrangement, but that's a >>>> tautology, and I dont think I am committed to tautologies because of my >>>> allegiance to Wimsattian emergence. The MEANING of the words of this >>>> sentence is indeed emergent since it is dependent on the arrangement of >>>> the >>>> letters. I am happy with the implication that a great many properties >>>> become emergent under the defintion. Contra Searle and a bunch of other >>>> people, I think emergence is as common as dirt .... well perhaps not quite >>>> that common. >>>> >>>> N >>>> >>>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >>>> Clark University >>>> ([email protected]<#124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_> >>>> ) >>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >>>> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> *From:* Russ Abbott<#124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_> >>>> *To: >>>> *[email protected]<#124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_> >>>> ;The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee >>>> Group<#124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_> >>>> *Sent:* 11/7/2009 5:54:45 PM >>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?" >>>> >>>> One problem with Nick's proposed definition is that it will label as >>>> emergent all sorts of uninteresting properties -- such as the sequence of >>>> characters in this message. I'm not talking about the semantics of the >>>> message or anything at all interesting, just the sequence of characters. >>>> That satisfies both of Nick's criteria. >>>> >>>> So does the arrangement of molecules of air in your kitchen at exactly >>>> 3:00pm tomorrow. That satisfies the criterion of depending on the >>>> arrangement of elements. >>>> >>>> -- Russ Abbott >>>> _____________________________________________ >>>> Professor, Computer Science >>>> California State University, Los Angeles >>>> Cell phone: 310-621-3805 >>>> o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Nicholas Thompson < >>>> [email protected]<#124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> I agree that defitions, like everything else in science, should be >>>>> heuristic. >>>>> >>>>> So, I suggest we define an emergent property as one that depends on the >>>>> arrangement or timing of the elements that make up the whole. In so >>>>> defining emergence, we are led to ask, in every case of putative >>>>> emergence, >>>>> what is the particular arrangment or timing of presentation of the parts >>>>> that makes this property possible. >>>>> >>>>> Now, the tricky bit comes when we SUSPECT that a property is emergent >>>>> but have not yet discovered (or think perhaps we may NEVER discover) the >>>>> arrangments of parts that makes it possible. I gather that some >>>>> properties >>>>> of CA's fall into that category. Not sure what to do. We could, I >>>>> suppose, define a loose category of "putative emergence" using surprise >>>>> as a >>>>> criterion, but reserve the term "emergent" itself for a property whose >>>>> dependence on arrangment and/or timeing has been demonstrated. >>>>> >>>>> It's heuristic because it leads to research. >>>>> >>>>> Nick >>>>> >>>>> Nick >>>>> >>>>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >>>>> Clark University >>>>> ([email protected]<#124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_> >>>>> ) >>>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >>>>> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> *From:* Douglas >>>>> Roberts<#124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_> >>>>> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee >>>>> Group<#124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_> >>>>> *Sent:* 11/7/2009 10:02:05 AM >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?" >>>>> >>>>> 100%, complete, total unequivocal agreement w/Glen. >>>>> >>>>> --Doug >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Doug Roberts >>>>> [email protected]<#124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_> >>>>> [email protected]<#124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_> >>>>> 505-455-7333 - Office >>>>> 505-670-8195 - Cell >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:15 AM, glen e. p. ropella < >>>>> [email protected]<#124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 11/05/2009 05:04 PM: >>>>>> > I think your rejection of emergence applies only to (2) above.... >>>>>> and >>>>>> > possibly (4), if we understand "no way" to mean "no way we have >>>>>> thought of >>>>>> > yet". But I bet you disagree. >>>>>> >>>>>> Naaa. I don't really disagree. I said I TEND to think that emergence >>>>>> is fictitious. Until I see a definition or construction of it that I >>>>>> can _use_ to get my work done, it's a useless concept, regardless of >>>>>> whether it exists or not. I don't frankly care if it exists. What >>>>>> matters is whether it can be used for some purpose (other than passing >>>>>> the time arguing with bright people on e-mail lists ;-). >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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
