Re: Emergent Properties

I read the whole work a couple of years ago, but I'm thinking I need to
check it out again because I've forgotten too much (library has it
and I'm too cheap to buy it --- sorry!) I didn't realize/forgot you
were one of the contributing essayists as well. You guys are well
represented here! Now that Randy and Keith both have brought up
MacKay that sounds like necessary reading as well.

I also like the way Lewis phrased it in one of his books --- someone
might observe a poem and correctly conclude it's a bunch of black marks
on a piece of paper, but if they insist it is nothing more than that
they would be in error. Is this getting at the 'nothing buttery'
phrase in the same way you refer to marks on a board, Randy? Or
perhaps heirarchically we could have a grammatician at yet another level
in the middle observing only words and punctuation but blind to overall
meaning or significance. Is this true to the vein of thought?

--merv
  

Terry M. Gray wrote:

> Randy and Merv,
>
> Have you seen the chapter from Perspectives on an Evolving Creation
> "Complexity, Self-Organization, and Design" that Loren Haarsma and I
> wrote?
>
> Pages 305-308 are an extended discussion of the concept probably
> moving back and forth between the two hands that Randy lists below.
>
> TG
>
>
> On May 5, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Randy Isaac wrote:
>
>> Perhaps this phrase warrants a little more discussion and
>> clarification. I think there's a lot of good insight here but also
>> a lot of confusion. I would certainly like to learn more about it
>> from all of you.
>>
>> On one hand, if emergent properties are properties that are "...more
>> than simply the sum of the parts..." then the concept is ubiquitous
>> and almost trivial. Trivial in the sense of no major philosophical
>> consequences. This definition of emergent can be easily illustrated
>> by considering the hydrogen atom. The proton and the electron can
>> be studied in great detail as separate entities but not until they
>> interact with each other and are studied as a two-body system do you
>> get the beauty of the various energy states and electron
>> position/momentum distributions. Add more components and many other
>> properties emerge. Combine enough atoms and you get solid state
>> behavior such as conductivity, semiconductivity, superconductivity,
>> and countless other properties that derive only from a collection of
>> atoms. Virtually every system in the world displays this kind of
>> emergent property. But I don't see reductionism as meaning a system
>> is merely the sum of its parts in this sense nor do I see this kind
>> of emergent property as offsetting reductionism.
>>
>> On the other hand, a more interesting approach is to break a system
>> down into the relevant forces governing the interaction of the
>> parts. The forces of gravity, electro-magnetism, and the weak and
>> strong forces are the fundamental forces. A myriad of diverse
>> properties emerge upon applying these forces to a set of elementary
>> particles (or fields, if you prefer). Reductionism, it seems, would
>> indicate that all properties can be reduced to a proper application
>> of these forces (which scientists hope to unify some day into a
>> grand unified theory). Are there properties in this world that
>> cannot be reduced to these forces? In cosmology, the latest data
>> indicate an incredible 95% of the universe is based on non-baryonic
>> (dark) matter and on unknown (dark) energy. It remains to be seen
>> where they come from. The other major question of emergent
>> properties is life and consciousness. Are these emergent from the
>> basic forces or is there also a (dark) unknown (supernatural?)
>> parameter. This appears to be the next big thrust of reductionism,
>> the reduction of our thoughts, emotions, behavior, religion, and
>> ultimately our life, our free will, to properties that emerge from
>> the fundamental forces of nature governing the constituent atoms in
>> our brains.
>>
>> Several decades ago, I enjoyed reading Donal Mackay's books and his
>> concepts of hierarchical, complementary levels of meaning and the
>> fallacy of "nothing-buttery". There's a lot of good insight there
>> but it's not clear that he's precluded reductionism in the second
>> sense above. Emergent properties of complex systems may indeed
>> require several complementary levels of explanation, each of which
>> is complete in its own realm, yet none of which is a complete
>> explanation of the system. This would not deny the reductionist
>> view of underlying forces being the sole origin of all the levels.
>> Mackay also gives examples where human intelligence has imposed
>> meaning. One of his examples was a sentence written in chalk on a
>> blackboard. It can be described "completely" chemically and
>> physically at various levels but must also be explained at the level
>> of meaning of the alphabet, the vocabulary, and the sentence
>> structure. This is an example where the meaning is imposed from
>> outside the system and has nothing to do with the inherent system
>> itself.
>>
>> Net: I'm not a reductionist but making a clear argument against
>> reductionism isn't so easy either.
>>
>> Randy
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mervin Bitikofer"
>> <mrb22667@kansas.net>
>> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 10:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: Evolutionary Psychology and Free Will
>>
>>
>> ...... I had the privilege of hearing that doctor in person at
>>
>>> K-State (again -- courtesies of Keith), and the phrase "emergent
>>> properties" was one of the answers given to reductionist thought.
>>> Yet I still have only a vague notion of its meaning. A property of
>>> a whole may "emerge" that is more than simply the sum of the parts.
>>> -- or at least I can parrot this explanation. .......
>>>
>>> --merv
>>
>>
>
> ________________
> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
> Computer Support Scientist
> Chemistry Department
> Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, CO 80523
> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri May 5 21:24:26 2006