<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText>Lee, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I am perfectly happy that an argument cannot embrace every extreme case. <i>Reductio ad absurdum</i> has never seemed to me a conclusive form of argument.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I looked up "phase transition", which one wise source defined as "a transition ... in phase." Wikipedia was a little wiser.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><b><i>During a phase transition of a given medium, certain properties of the medium change, often discontinuously, as a result of the change of external conditions, such as temperature, pressure, or others.<o:p></o:p></i></b></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Or perhaps more broadly: a situation in which small changes in an independent variable make a tremendous difference in dependent ones; Or: small changes at one level of organization produce a reorganization at the next, higher, level. If so, there are some wonderful descriptions of phase transitions in Bill Buford’s <i>Among the Thugs, </i>which documents how skillful organizers catalyze violence in football mobs. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>But these definitions seem also to be perfectly applicable to “emergence”. In other words, “phase transition” is another name for the phenomenon we call “emergence.” But to say that emergence and phase transitions are the same thing does not tell us why they occur? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>So, we come back to the question, is “emergence” “merely” a psychological phenomenon, a situation in which human expectations are violated, in which case emergence can be eliminated by understanding. Or is it more than that? Here’s an example. As you bring the temperature of water down from 40 degrees, at 37 degrees F, the density curve reverses and water starts become less dense. It still pours like water. It’s still wet like water. Not until a few degrees cooler does it begin to congeal. Now, where is the phase transition, here? Or are there two. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Now the person who asked me, essentially, to explain why I need an explanation for “phase changes” in cellular automata, or anything else, asked a fair question. Why the hell shouldn’t water increase decrease in density in both directions from 37 degrees F? Water can do whatever the hell it wants, right? My desire to call that an “emergent” is just another name for the failure of my imagination, and doesn’t refer to anything inherently physical. I hate that conclusion, but I keep being forced back to it. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Nick <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Nicholas S. Thompson<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Clark University<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com] On Behalf Of lrudolph@meganet.net<br>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2019 6:22 AM<br>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com><br>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words RE: words</p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> I only kinda like it because I would prefer something like: emergence <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> exists when the post-map language has a different expressibility than <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> the pre-map language.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Surely not *simply* "different"? If the post-map language has strictly less expressibility than the pre-map language, does "emergence exist"? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Well, maybe. What if (the extreme case) it has NO expressibility?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Either of those would fit under that other proposed description, "phase transition", but (to me) the informal notion of "emergence" just can't include the extreme case, and probably shouldn't include the "strictly less" case (but maybe I could be argued out of that "shouldn't").<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>============================================================<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</span></a> by Dr. Strangelove<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>