[FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?"
Ted Carmichael
tedsaid at gmail.com
Tue Nov 17 15:19:20 EST 2009
Apologizes if this conversation has already continued elsewhere.
I don't know about Wimsatt, but I believe R. Rosen made similar points;
i.e., an emergent property is essentially something that cannot be
simulated. I disagree of course, but that's what he said, IIRC.
-Ted
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:
> OK, so to you, I gather, emergence is just "nominal". The words at one
> level of abstraction do not apply readily to the entities at a lower level,
> and so emergence ... uh ... emerges.
>
> So, you want to say, pressure is an emergent property of an arrangement of
> gas molecules in which they are all piled up on one place and all absent
> from another place nearby.
>
> I hope others at this point will see the error of my ways, but.... I think
> I have to sign on to that.
>
> Does anybody else remember that part of Wimsatt that I have coded in my
> brain as "nothing that is emergent can be studied by scientists". I know
> that is wrong, but what is it that he said that was like that. Roger??? Or
> are you in Chicago. Can you THINK in Chicago???
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
> Clark University (nthompson at clarku.edu)
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe]
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Russ Abbott <russ.abbott at gmail.com>
> *To: *nickthompson at earthlink.net
> *Cc: *nthompson <nthompson at clarku.edu>; ERIC P. CHARLES <epc2 at psu.edu>;
> friam at redfish.com; Charles Wesley Demarco <Cdemarco at clarku.edu>; Chip
> Garner <chip at garnertotalenergy.com>; Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com>;
> Jim Gattiker <j.gattiker at googlemail.com>; maryl <maryl at cnsp.com>; merle<merle at arspublica.org>;
> michel bloch <mbloch at mountvernon.fr>; Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>;
> Roger E Critchlow Jr <rec at elf.org>
> *Sent:* 11/8/2009 1:25:41 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?"
>
>
>
> NST===> Now we can PUSH. <===nst
>
> Speaking of pushing, the thing about pressure is that it seems like one of
> the standard examples of emergence. It's emergence at a relatively simple
> level--what I call static emergence--but emergence nevertheless. You did
> point out that it depends on the gas being inside the container. But is that
> enough for it to pass the test of being dependent on arrangement?
>
> Pressure is a property of what? Not of the gas and the container but only
> of the gas in a confined area. The mechanism of confinement is presumably
> not relevant. According to Eric Weisstein, pressure is force per unit area<http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Pressure.html>,
> which I think is the standard definition. So what does it mean to ask
> whether pressure is an emergent property? What does it mean to say that
> pressure is a property at all? Presumably it means that it is a property of
> whatever is applying a force to an area.
>
> The only reason we can talk about force per unit area is that we have
> statistically eliminated/aggregated the effects of the individual collisions
> of the gas molecules with the surface. So pressure would seem to be an
> emergent property (intuitively understood) of a gas that is understood
> scientifically by factoring out(!) the specific arrangement of elements.
> That seems to be where the contradiction arises. It's exactly the opposite
> of requiring that emergence depend (explicitly) on arrangements in time or
> space.
>
> What about other static properties? What about hardness? Steven Weinberg
> notes that hardness is an emergent property of diamonds -- and that they
> have that property because of the way the carbon molecules are arranged.
> But the reason an object has a property is different from the property
> itself. If one wants to talk only about a property itself, a property that
> (let's assume) could be implemented in a number of different ways, then the
> particular way hardness is implemented in diamonds need not be fundamental
> to the property of hardness. So again, it seems that the property of
> hardness (as distinct from the mechanism of its implementation) factors out
> time and space.
>
> That, of course, is my position. A property is emergent if it is a property
> of a level of abstraction. It makes no difference (according to me) how that
> property is implemented. Presumably a level of abstraction could be
> implemented in any number of ways.
>
> To take an example from my own field, many devices are Turing complete,
> meaning that they are capable of computing any computable function. Being
> Turing complete is a property. Is it emergent? Not according to the
> requirement that it depends on an arrangement of time and space. There are
> numerous different ways of building Turing complete devices. Perhaps each
> one depends on a particular arrangement of component elements. But no
> particular arrangement is essential to being Turing complete.
>
> -- Russ
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Nicholas Thompson <
> nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> This is good Russ; we are getting somewhere. we have locked horns. Now
>> we can PUSH.
>>
>> Please see below.
>>
>> N
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
>> Clark University (nthompson at clarku.edu)
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Russ Abbott <russ.abbott at gmail.com>
>> *To: *nickthompson at earthlink.net
>> *Cc: *nthompson <nthompson at clarku.edu>; ERIC P. CHARLES <epc2 at psu.edu>;
>> friam at redfish.com
>> *Sent:* 11/8/2009 11:06:43 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?"
>>
>> OK. Then we have to ask what we mean by a property.
>>
>> NST===>Agreed. And to be honest, I dont have an ambient definition. So I
>> guess I will have to accept yours. <===nst
>>
>> One standard definition is that a property is a predicate, i.e., a
>> function mapping a thing to True or False. It then seems that as I mentioned
>> before, according to the proposed definition, non-emergent properties are
>> those that have factored out dependencies on the arrangement or timing of
>> the elements that make up the whole [thing] -- a standard example being
>> mass.
>>
>> So is that approach as good, i.e., to define the property (of properties)
>> of being non-emergent. A property is non-emergent if it has factored out any
>> dependencies on arrangement ... .
>>
>> NST===>Agreed again. You lay out pefectly Wimsatt's definition of the
>> complement of emergence ... aggregativity. <===nst
>>
>> I put it that way because if we suppose that we are talking about
>> "reality," which is at one basic level an arrangement of stuff in time and
>> space, then when we do science or make other abstractions about the world,
>> we sometime factor out features of the world that we find can be ignored for
>> certain purposes. When we can make such abstractions and they turn out to
>> be useful, we have made a scientific advance.
>>
>> NST===>Again. Perfect Wimsatt. I am completely on board. <===nst
>>
>> So I'm not criticizing doing this: mass in Newtonian physics has worked
>> quite well. But doesn't this imply that according to the proposed
>> definition, emergent properties are those that haven't (completely) factored
>> out that aspect of reality?
>>
>> NST===> Exactly. Now we get to the hard part. The part of Wimsatt's
>> article where he might be saying that one can only do science on
>> non-emergent properties. I am so old and forgetful that I will have to go
>> back and look, but this was a part of the paper we didnt discuss at length
>> in the seminar and I may not have "gotten" it. <===nst
>>
>> Would Newtonian momentum be non-emergent because it depends on
>> directionality (arrangement) and speed (which depends on time)?
>>
>> NST===> Oh Gosh. I need to specify "arrangement" dont I? Ugh. In other
>> words, just saying that all the parts are in one place is not an adequate
>> use of "arrangement" for W-emergence to work. I have to talk about relative
>> arrangement ... internal arrangement.... . I wonder what trouble THAT gets
>> me into. <===nst
>>
>> How about statistical properties, which factor out arrangement and time?
>> Wouldn't the proposed definition say that pressure, for example, is
>> non-emergent because it doesn't depend on arrangement or time?
>>
>> NST===> I think any "symmetrical" arrangement (in that mindblowing
>> stupid way that physicists abuse that word) of particles could not be the
>> basis of emergence. So, cautiously, I think I would have to agree that
>> pressure is not an emergent property of the gas, though,, of course it is an
>> emergent property of gas+vessel. I guess. <===nst
>>
>> NST===>Have I walked into a crucial contradiction, here? I feel the
>> vultures circling overhead. <===nst
>>
>>
>> -- Russ A
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Nicholas Thompson <
>> nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Russ,
>>>
>>> I said: So, I suggest we define an emergent property as one that depends
>>> on the arrangement or timing of the elements that make up the whole.
>>>
>>> You said: According to the proposed definition of emergence that
>>> page--with its component letters--is emergent.
>>>
>>> I say: But a page is not a PROPERTY. I am prepared to stipulate that
>>> under "my" defintion (Wimsatt's definition) a great many boring properties
>>> are emergent, but you are taking it too far. It does have to be a property
>>> and the property cannot be a restatement of the arrangement or ordering of
>>> the elements that is the occasion for the emergence. And I do stipulate
>>> that using W.'s definition I will later have to shoulder the burden of
>>> identifying which sorts of emergence are interesting.
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
>>> Clark University (nthompson at clarku.edu)
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>>> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Russ Abbott <russ.abbott at gmail.com>
>>> *To: *nickthompson at earthlink.net;nthompson <nthompson at clarku.edu>
>>> *Cc: *ERIC P. CHARLES <epc2 at psu.edu>; friam at redfish.com
>>> *Sent:* 11/8/2009 12:18:51 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?"
>>>
>>> I don't think Eric's point goes very far. A page with letters on it has
>>> letters as elements. According to the proposed definition of emergence that
>>> page--with its component letters--is emergent. Also, it doesn't matter
>>> whether the letters are arranged to have a meaning--in English or any other
>>> language. Any random collection of letters is emergent according to the
>>> proposed definition. It doesn't seem particularly useful to me to say that.
>>>
>>> -- Russ A
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
>>> nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah. Like Eric Said!
>>>>
>>>> n
>>>>
>>>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
>>>> Clark University (nthompson at clarku.edu)
>>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>>>> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> *From:* ERIC P. CHARLES <epc2 at psu.edu>
>>>> *To: *Russ Abbott <russ.abbott at gmail.com>
>>>> *Cc: *nickthompson at earthlink.net; friam at redfish.com
>>>> *Sent:* 11/7/2009 7:09:10 PM
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?"
>>>>
>>>> In an attempt to defend Nick's definition (though I liked it better when
>>>> he offered the categories of definitions than when he tried to pick one as
>>>> proper):
>>>>
>>>> I suspect the statement "the series of letters in this sentence depends
>>>> on the series of letters in this sentence", doesn't work, because the
>>>> letters are not an element of the letters. That is, the definition offered
>>>> requires a statement about something and its elements, not something and
>>>> itself. Thus, you would need to say that "the sentence depends on the series
>>>> of letters in the sentence", which is not terribly interesting to me, but is
>>>> certainly not a tautology or otherwise trivial.
>>>>
>>>> The only way I can see for you to try to argue back is to place especial
>>>> emphasis on "the series" is the first phrase and "the letters" in the
>>>> second. However, as soon as you are willing to consider "the sequence" as a
>>>> real entity existing on a higher level, you are admitting emergence, and so
>>>> the claim is not trivial (i.e., you have implicitly admitted from the start
>>>> that "a sequence" is a variety of emergent).
>>>>
>>>> Eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 08:35 PM, *Russ Abbott <russ.abbott at gmail.com>*wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If something satisfies a definition (X is emergent if the elements of x
>>>> are dependent on their arrangement ...) then what sense does it make to say
>>>> that the definition doesn't apply to if it's satisfied trivially? It's still
>>>> satisfied.
>>>>
>>>> (Of course the dirt in your garden is also emergent under this
>>>> criterion.)
>>>>
>>>> It would seem that every property that doesn't abstract away arrangement
>>>> and time becomes emergent. The mass of an aggregation is not emergent
>>>> because mass abstracts away arrangement and time.
>>>>
>>>> -- Russ A
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
>>>> nickthompson at earthlink.net<#124d5c265585bcf8_124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The arrangement is indeed dependent on the arrangement, but that's a
>>>>> tautology, and I dont think I am committed to tautologies because of my
>>>>> allegiance to Wimsattian emergence. The MEANING of the words of this
>>>>> sentence is indeed emergent since it is dependent on the arrangement of the
>>>>> letters. I am happy with the implication that a great many properties
>>>>> become emergent under the defintion. Contra Searle and a bunch of other
>>>>> people, I think emergence is as common as dirt .... well perhaps not quite
>>>>> that common.
>>>>>
>>>>> N
>>>>>
>>>>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
>>>>> Clark University (nthompson at clarku.edu<#124d5c265585bcf8_124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_>
>>>>> )
>>>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>>>>> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> *From:* Russ Abbott<#124d5c265585bcf8_124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_>
>>>>> *To: *nickthompson at earthlink.net<#124d5c265585bcf8_124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_>
>>>>> ;The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<#124d5c265585bcf8_124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_>
>>>>> *Sent:* 11/7/2009 5:54:45 PM
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?"
>>>>>
>>>>> One problem with Nick's proposed definition is that it will label as
>>>>> emergent all sorts of uninteresting properties -- such as the sequence of
>>>>> characters in this message. I'm not talking about the semantics of the
>>>>> message or anything at all interesting, just the sequence of characters.
>>>>> That satisfies both of Nick's criteria.
>>>>>
>>>>> So does the arrangement of molecules of air in your kitchen at exactly
>>>>> 3:00pm tomorrow. That satisfies the criterion of depending on the
>>>>> arrangement of elements.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Russ Abbott
>>>>> _____________________________________________
>>>>> Professor, Computer Science
>>>>> California State University, Los Angeles
>>>>> Cell phone: 310-621-3805
>>>>> o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Nicholas Thompson <
>>>>> nickthompson at earthlink.net<#124d5c265585bcf8_124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that defitions, like everything else in science, should be
>>>>>> heuristic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I suggest we define an emergent property as one that depends on
>>>>>> the arrangement or timing of the elements that make up the whole. In so
>>>>>> defining emergence, we are led to ask, in every case of putative emergence,
>>>>>> what is the particular arrangment or timing of presentation of the parts
>>>>>> that makes this property possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, the tricky bit comes when we SUSPECT that a property is emergent
>>>>>> but have not yet discovered (or think perhaps we may NEVER discover) the
>>>>>> arrangments of parts that makes it possible. I gather that some properties
>>>>>> of CA's fall into that category. Not sure what to do. We could, I
>>>>>> suppose, define a loose category of "putative emergence" using surprise as a
>>>>>> criterion, but reserve the term "emergent" itself for a property whose
>>>>>> dependence on arrangment and/or timeing has been demonstrated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's heuristic because it leads to research.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>>>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
>>>>>> Clark University (nthompson at clarku.edu<#124d5c265585bcf8_124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_>
>>>>>> )
>>>>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>>>>>> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> *From:* Douglas Roberts<#124d5c265585bcf8_124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_>
>>>>>> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<#124d5c265585bcf8_124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_>
>>>>>> *Sent:* 11/7/2009 10:02:05 AM
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 100%, complete, total unequivocal agreement w/Glen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Doug
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Doug Roberts
>>>>>> droberts at rti.org<#124d5c265585bcf8_124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_>
>>>>>> doug at parrot-farm.net<#124d5c265585bcf8_124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_>
>>>>>> 505-455-7333 - Office
>>>>>> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:15 AM, glen e. p. ropella <
>>>>>> gepr at agent-based-modeling.com<#124d5c265585bcf8_124d51d9fbc08842_124d4d97171a28a5_124d1984927905d8_>
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 11/05/2009 05:04 PM:
>>>>>>> > I think your rejection of emergence applies only to (2) above....
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> > possibly (4), if we understand "no way" to mean "no way we have
>>>>>>> thought of
>>>>>>> > yet". But I bet you disagree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Naaa. I don't really disagree. I said I TEND to think that
>>>>>>> emergence
>>>>>>> is fictitious. Until I see a definition or construction of it that I
>>>>>>> can _use_ to get my work done, it's a useless concept, regardless of
>>>>>>> whether it exists or not. I don't frankly care if it exists. What
>>>>>>> matters is whether it can be used for some purpose (other than
>>>>>>> passing
>>>>>>> the time arguing with bright people on e-mail lists ;-).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ============================================================
>>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>>
>>>> Eric Charles
>>>>
>>>> Professional Student and
>>>> Assistant Professor of Psychology
>>>> Penn State University
>>>> Altoona, PA 16601
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20091117/bf808445/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list