|Dec31-09, 09:31 PM||#1|
What is "emergent"; what is "fundamental"?
Bee Hossenfelder had an interesting discussion of the term "emergent" back in mid 2008:
There are apparently several ways the term is used in theoretical physics. Several different types of emergence.
Then this year she had a discussion of the different things "fundamental" can mean:
physics news on PhysOrg.com
>> Promising doped zirconia
>> New X-ray method shows how frog embryos could help thwart disease
>> Bringing life into focus
|Jan1-10, 01:15 AM||#2|
Here is a recent paper that makes a stab at defining causality.
Entropy for theories with indefinite causal structure
Sonia Markes, Lucien Hardy
|Jan2-10, 07:35 AM||#3|
This is my preferred interpretation that is somewhat different that smolins specific CNS, but still I think in line with his overall spirit of evolving law and it is not necessarily inconsistent with it since there is I think a close analogy to black hole horizon and general observer horizons. Maybe the blackhole idea is more "concrete" than the general observer horizon thing which probably seems even more abstract.
Fundamental I personally think of as "irreducible information", and this is in my view observer dependent. What is irreducible to one observer, need not be to another observer. It's no inconsistency to me.
But then I'm free of even the slighest form of observer invariant realist ideals. Since realism in the classical sense can also be emergent in the democracy of observer sense.
|Similar Threads for: What is "emergent"; what is "fundamental"?|
|Difference between "Identical", "Equal", "Equivalent"||Calculus & Beyond Homework||9|
|My thoughts "Emergent physics: Fermi point scenario G.E. Volovik"||Beyond the Standard Model||8|