Correspondence Principle vs Emergence

[Matterwave]

you only slept 6 hours? >.>

 

[StevieTNZ]

I think you're developing an unhealthy obsession with Quantum Mechanics, Varon. ;)

 

[Varon]

I went to bed having asked for a scientific definition of emergence (which I never got by the way), and I woke up to THIS?

Ok. Let's be scientific as it's the name of the game. After reading at Wikipedia. It seems physics has its own meaning of Emergence that is different from mainstream. Here it says:

"In physics, emergence is used to describe a property, law, or phenomenon which occurs at macroscopic scales (in space or time) but not at microscopic scales, despite the fact that a macroscopic system can be viewed as a very large ensemble of microscopic systems.

An emergent property need not be more complicated than the underlying non-emergent properties which generate it. For instance, the laws of thermodynamics are remarkably simple, even if the laws which govern the interactions between component particles are complex. The term emergence in physics is thus used not to signify complexity, but rather to distinguish which laws and concepts apply to macroscopic scales, and which ones apply to microscopic scales."

While normal meaning of it is:

"In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems."

So when mentioning the word "Emergence", One must specify whether it is "Emergence (physics-wise)" and "Emergence (mainstream)"??

 

[jambaugh]

Ok. Let's be scientific as it's the name of the game. After reading at Wikipedia. It seems physics has its own meaning of Emergence that is different from mainstream. [...]

Firstly "mainstream" is relative, who's to say physicists aren't mainstream and professors of philosophy are?

Secondly you are focusing on the wrong aspects of both definitions you cite...(partly a function of the variability of definitions found on wikipedia).

In both definitions one critical aspect is a change of scale with increasing scale (most specifically in the size of the systems under consideration in terms of fundamental degrees of freedom.)

There is also typically a higher level of abstraction when considering the level at which the emergent property manifests. (e.g. an object with emergent properties is a collection of many pre-emergent objects.)

To my mind, the canonical example in science is the distinction between the subjects of chemistry and physics. A snooty particle physicist might say to the chemist, "you're just doing applied physics!" but the chemist would then challenge the physicist to build a reactor for the production of benzene and the physicist would be stumped (unless he also studied chemistry). What the chemist knows and the particle physicist doesn't is the emergent properties of aggregates of fundamental particles. In some ways they are simpler and in some ways more complex. (Try defining complexity as an exercise)

The property of "being carbon" is not simply a matter of counting electrons protons and neutrons as e.g. "three helium atoms" is not carbon. It is of course a function of their arrangement and interaction within a certain scale of energies.

A similar relationship exists between the chemist and biologist or between the biologist and the physician. "illness" and "health" are multi-level emergent properties well above the level of the quarks and leptons of with the referent organism is composed.

There is a simplification in the empirical determination of the emergent property, i.e. we can see if you're ill without having to check each atom, but rather checking your temperature, reflexes, heart rate and breathing sounds.

Let me also mention, to relate to the other thread, from my Copenhagen Interpretation perspective the states of objective reality are emergent properties of the more fundamental underlying quantum actuality.

Thus the quantum correspondence principle IS the derivation of the behavior emergent properties from the more fundamental scale quantum theory.

Finally I would point you to the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for your definitions wherein you'll find e.g. definitions of http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/" along with some history and context of usage and most especially citation and reference of sources.

 

[Maui]

But how do you tie up Correspondence Principle with Emergence??

Perturbatively and approximately, as has been the case so far.

With the failure of reductionism in explaining what matter is(energy can't be quantified beyond the ambiguous "unit that has the ability to do work"), everything became emergent(more than the sum of its parts), so we can only hope for a weak approximation to the real workings of reality. In a way, something happens, there is something to call 'matter'(or more precisely - the ability to do work - i.e., in this case, manifest and act as if it were solid matter), though we don't really know what and why(qm doesn't give a usable clue what matter is or what energy is). So if causality holds(it probably doesn't in the final analysis, as i have been pointing out here and in other similar threads), there has got to be an underlying reality, that's unaccounted for. But if one makes the point that "the ability to do work"(whatever that really means and here i am speaking only approximately) can't construct the universe we see, i wouldn't argue.