Recent content by Diderot

Q_Goest #47, #53 Thank you for the summary and links, I have to read up. One quick response: New nonseperable fused properties, which come out of quantum mechanical interactions (Q_Goest#47), do not support the thesis of strong emergence – as defined in the OP. Obviously if these properties...

Arildno, It should be no surprise to anyone that physicists object to a concept of a universe which is inhabited by in principle unexplainable emergent properties. Obviously they don't want the universe to be like that; 'emergent properties' - in this strong sense - goes against everything that...

From talking to you physicists I have come to the conclusion that emergent properties, in the strong sense (see OP and Shalizi’s quote in post #41), is not considered a meaningful or even truthful concept. This is what I expected and hoped for. Off topic: This subject relates to the thesis of...

Arildno, I love very simple. Thank you, I enjoyed your very clear reasoning. It is in accordance with what philosopher Chalmers wrote:

Atyy, your link to Cosma Rohilla Shalizi's website is a great find. Prof Shalizi goes to the heart of the issue.

Pythagorean, By wiki's definition of emergent properties (see OP) one cannot separate 'emergence' and 'deducibility'. Emergent is synonymous for in-deducible. Emergent properties *poof* into existence. Properties which we can deduce (explain) from a lower level are not emergent properties by...

Pythagorean, Not meaningful as in nonsensical? Emergent properties! According to the theory of emergence water has emergent properties that are in principle not deducible from even the most complete knowledge of a lower level. These emergent properties emerge from nothing, they cannot be...

atyy, Ergo, the so-called emergent properties of water, e.g. wetness, can be deduced from the most complete knowledge of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms and fundamental laws (Schroedinger's equation for the interaction of hydrogen and oxygen). People who tell us that water has ‘emergent’...

Arildno, so you are saying: Ok guys, let's declare this property 'emergent' because the client wants results before 6 o' clock this afternoon. What does emergent mean boss? Hey, don't worry about it, we are all practical folks and don't care much about the exact definition of terms

arildno, So, you are saying that, in this case, an emergent property is not deducible within a reasonable time frame. So 'not deducible' - and emergence - has a practical connotation. An emergent property is not in-deducible in principle, because of reasons like: 'it is more than the sum of...

(1) at least 2 water molecules (2) particles and laws; hydrogen atoms, oxygen atoms and relevant physical laws (3) the abstract addition of particles and laws

Arildno, So, this configuration, being an emergent property, is not explainable (deducible) from the most complete knowledge of a lower level? Is that what you are saying?

Arildno, My synonyms for the word 'deducible' are 'explainable' and 'understandable'. For instance the sentence 'some physicists hold the position that water has so-called emergent properties, which are in principle not explainable (or understandable or deducible) from the most complete...

ZapperZ, No, I asked this (you quoted correctly the first time): Let me rephrase my question: What do physicists think about water as an example of something with emergent properties? I wonder if the concept of water as an example of something with emergent properties, has become main stream...

Pythagorean, I would prefer not go there. I want to keep it 'simple': H2O, does it posses 'emergent' properties or not?. I take it from your answer that you don't believe in emergent properties [edit: with regard to water] of the irreducible kind. ZapperZ, My question isn't about complex...