Re: Srong emergence
- From: Alpha <omegazero2003@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 22, 11:25 am, c...@xxxxxxxx (Curt Welch) wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_emergence
"Strong emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent property
is irreducible to its individual constituents."
My position is that this position is unsupportable.
Effects in the universe which we have not yet reduced is not proof that
they can not be reduced. There is no way possible to prove that an effect
can exist, but can't be reduced. As such, the entire concept of
irreducible effects is a non-starter.
When we are faced with a complex emergent property, there are only two
options. Either it is impossible to reduce from within this universe (we
don't have access to the information we would need to explain it), or we
just haven't yet found a workable reduction. Some reductions may be
possible, but not practical because the level of complex and scale makes it
too complex for humans to understand and too complex for any machine we
could practically build to understand. There is no way to tell which of
those it is, as such, we can never know if an emergent property is
irreducible.
If there is a way to prove that systems can exist which can't be reduced, I
might change my mind on this. But until I see that proof, my position
stands.
In addition, it's a concept that has no purpose other than to stop science.
That is, to put a wall up with a sign on it that reads: "science doesn't
work here, don't bother" - even though we can never know if that is true.
You really have to question the true motivations of anyone that pushes the
idea of Strong Emergence. It's clearly nothing but an artificial barrier
created by people who would prefer to believe that there are things which
science can never explain.
The issue is NOT that science cannot explain such phenomena; it is
that it CAN explain it by using concepts such as emergence, non-linear
CAS and so forth. Do you think a KdV equation is not science? Or
Kristof Koch;s equation describing single neuron processes? And on and
on. If you you reject about 90% of science. Is that what you want?
You believe, religiously (which is where your idiocy creeps in) that
there is one and only one aspect of Universe and it is fully explained
by, say quarks and gluons, or atoms or what you on this day, deem to
be the bottom level (even though physics has not even bottomed out
yet.)
I see it as nothing but a complex psychological
defense mechanism to prevent dehumanization of people. At best, it's a
defense mechanism for a scientist that has no faith in his own power to
solve hard problems.
So, Alwyn Scott did not solve hard probelms? What about John Holland?
The explanations that deal with non-linear CAS for example, or
autopoietic systems *are* scientific explanations in the nest
tradition. They map onto a reality we can see (with or without our
instruments). Just like QCD maps onto a reality at that level that we
can see with instrumentation (although there is a lot of inference
within particle phyiscs!!!)
The different levels of description are *NOT* mutually exclusive; that
is what you must learn my son. They are compementary. In fact, they
are emergently holistic.
.
- References:
- Srong emergence
- From: Curt Welch
- Srong emergence
- Prev by Date: Re: Consciousness: what's the problem?
- Next by Date: Re: Srong emergence
- Previous by thread: Re: Srong emergence
- Next by thread: Re: Srong emergence
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
