I am a nobody to coin any kind of definition....I don't see how that fits with your definition. Turbulent flow and laminar flow of the same fluid should have the same numbers and types of fundamental particles. So per your definition it would not be emergent, in contrast to the standard usage.
It's just my curiosity that may be getting annoying for people here.
I think emergence does not /should not mean the same numbers and same types of fundamental particles...
It means /should mean the occurrence /creation of something/some property that was not previously there. For example the occurrence /creation/change /destruction etc. of particles from the quantum field when an observation is made.
The main thing here is that firstly a process/property was completely absent and then there it was. This is emergence to my simple mind (simplicity/complexity/variety /sameness etc. of the process is not an issue here) .
Again, this is not vanity but plain curiosity.