Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
- SweetSorrowBitter
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: February 27th, 2021, 9:52 am
Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Let's take for example laws like
1 Boyle's law which is an example of thermodynamics
2 Hooke's law is an example of laws of physics
3 the Pythagorean theorem can be described as a law of geometry
Even laws of chemistry are also in a way physical laws applied to chemistry (yet from what I've read , the consensus of philosophers of science is chemistry is not reducible to physics) .
Are there any individual laws of say biology and chemistry ? Or is the interaction of cells and mollecules too complex for them to have laws , would that in itself be a law putting a boundary on possibilities within applied biology/engineering ?
Richard Feynman had a vision of miniature factories using nanomachines to build complex products (including additional nanomachines), this advanced form of nanotechnology (or molecular manufacturing) would make use of positionally-controlled mechanosynthesis guided by molecular machine systems. MNT would involve combining physical principles demonstrated by biophysics, chemistry, other nanotechnologies, and the molecular machinery of life with the systems engineering principles found in modern macroscale factories.
None of this for example violates certain laws of physics , but doesn't this also depend on a highly reductionist view ? That higher order phenomenon can be reduced to lower order ones ? What about holism ?
The envision nanotechnology at the atomic , subatomic or supraatomic scale is envisioned by many to be able to permute matter in any way physically possible. Which would theoretically mean protection from diseases , indefinite lifespans , being able to alter traits in any physically possible way and possibly ending things like hunger etc. Does one need to subscribe to a highly reductionist view to have this kind of vision and have a clear fundamental theory that doesn't exclude these possibilities ? One might wonder if there might be things that require more energy than the universe itself but is that going to ever be required to achieve anything that is physically possible I wonder.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
There's a lot to potentially talk about on this topic (good topic). But I think the laws of thermodynamics are among the more interesting ones to consider when looking at the concept of strong emergentism. Things like Boyle's law are statistical, in the sense that the behaviours they describe are statistical averages of the behaviours of lots of individual molecules of a gas. But when statistical behaviours emerge which are not reducible to the individual particle movements from which they derive, that's arguably when strong emergentism comes in. In the context of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, the directionality of time as a result of the second law is a well discussed one.SweetSorrowBitter wrote:1 Boyle's law which is an example of thermodynamics
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
First of all, strong emergence is not a" view".SweetSorrowBitter wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 12:20 am Are there really any good reasons to believe that certain higher order phenomenon can't even in principle be reduced to lower order phenomenon like particle physics and do views like holism also entail a degree of strong emetgentism ?
Let's take for example laws like
1 Boyle's law which is an example of thermodynamics
2 Hooke's law is an example of laws of physics
3 the Pythagorean theorem can be described as a law of geometry
Even laws of chemistry are also in a way physical laws applied to chemistry (yet from what I've read , the consensus of philosophers of science is chemistry is not reducible to physics) .
Are there any individual laws of say biology and chemistry ? Or is the interaction of cells and mollecules too complex for them to have laws , would that in itself be a law putting a boundary on possibilities within applied biology/engineering ?
Richard Feynman had a vision of miniature factories using nanomachines to build complex products (including additional nanomachines), this advanced form of nanotechnology (or molecular manufacturing) would make use of positionally-controlled mechanosynthesis guided by molecular machine systems. MNT would involve combining physical principles demonstrated by biophysics, chemistry, other nanotechnologies, and the molecular machinery of life with the systems engineering principles found in modern macroscale factories.
None of this for example violates certain laws of physics , but doesn't this also depend on a highly reductionist view ? That higher order phenomenon can be reduced to lower order ones ? What about holism ?
The envision nanotechnology at the atomic , subatomic or supraatomic scale is envisioned by many to be able to permute matter in any way physically possible. Which would theoretically mean protection from diseases , indefinite lifespans , being able to alter traits in any physically possible way and possibly ending things like hunger etc. Does one need to subscribe to a highly reductionist view to have this kind of vision and have a clear fundamental theory that doesn't exclude these possibilities ? One might wonder if there might be things that require more energy than the universe itself but is that going to ever be required to achieve anything that is physically possible I wonder.
It's a Scientific Description about contingency and relations between low level mechanisms and high level features(Necessity and Sufficiency of low level mechanism).
It's a phenomenon studied by Complexity Science (Complex System Science).
Strong emergence is not an "ism". It's not a Philosophical view but a classification term based on the displayed qualities and structure of a specific phenomenon. It's not as if there are 2-3 different competing explanations to choose from.
Strong emergence is identified and verified by our direct systematic observations in science....so our objective observations are our good reasons to accept the irreducibility of such phenomena.
The reduction of a system to its necessary parts is only one out of numerous methods available to science.
The use of different methodologies in science is important to establish a far greater understanding of the relations and roles of all the different parts in a mechanism.
I am not sure that Philosophy has anything to say about this scientific approach. Complexity science deals with complex relations in complex systems. To understand complex phenomena we need detailed observations, not a Normative critique on Science.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8266
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 3:28 am First of all, strong emergence is not a" view".
It's a Scientific Description about contingency and relations between low level mechanisms and high level features(Necessity and Sufficiency of low level mechanism).
It's a phenomenon studied by Complexity Science (Complex System Science).
The concept of emergence plays a central role in the science(s) of complexity. Yet while its importance seems substantial, its clarity is not.
[...]
We conclude that the emergence of interest to complexity science researchers is not the causally ‘interesting’ form of emergence which philosophers discuss; ‘emergence’ in complexity science, while intriguing to many, is still fully consistent with most forms of reductionism and does not allow for downward causation. - Link
It looks a lot like two different things are being discussed here.
"Who cares, wins"
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
That is a common problem caused by philosophers. They just ignore the science.(i.e. downward causation by the strong emergent phenomenon of mind properties is an observable fact.).Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 1:55 pmNickGaspar wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 3:28 am First of all, strong emergence is not a" view".
It's a Scientific Description about contingency and relations between low level mechanisms and high level features(Necessity and Sufficiency of low level mechanism).
It's a phenomenon studied by Complexity Science (Complex System Science).
The concept of emergence plays a central role in the science(s) of complexity. Yet while its importance seems substantial, its clarity is not.
[...]
We conclude that the emergence of interest to complexity science researchers is not the causally ‘interesting’ form of emergence which philosophers discuss; ‘emergence’ in complexity science, while intriguing to many, is still fully consistent with most forms of reductionism and does not allow for downward causation. - Link
It looks a lot like two different things are being discussed here.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8266
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 3:28 am First of all, strong emergence is not a" view".
It's a Scientific Description about contingency and relations between low level mechanisms and high level features(Necessity and Sufficiency of low level mechanism).
It's a phenomenon studied by Complexity Science (Complex System Science).
A Complexity Scientist wrote:The concept of emergence plays a central role in the science(s) of complexity. Yet while its importance seems substantial, its clarity is not.
[...]
We conclude that the emergence of interest to complexity science researchers is not the causally ‘interesting’ form of emergence which philosophers discuss; ‘emergence’ in complexity science, while intriguing to many, is still fully consistent with most forms of reductionism and does not allow for downward causation. - Link
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 1:55 pm It looks a lot like two different things are being discussed here.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 8:32 pm That is a common problem caused by philosophers. They just ignore the science.(i.e. downward causation by the strong emergent phenomenon of mind properties is an observable fact.).
This is a bit petty, don't you think? You've discovered that a word can and does carry multiple meanings, as nearly all words can. And you don't like it, because you prefer to ascribe only one meaning to that word. You claim ownership, on behalf of Complexity Science, to the word "emergence", and to the specific meaning that Complexity Scientists intend when they use it as professional/technical jargon. The word is not yours, or theirs, to define as you see fit. Language is a co-operative venture.
So philosophers are not causing any problems here, nor are they ignoring the science. They're just using a shade of meaning that you don't like much. I'll go a little farther: the shade of meaning in use in this topic is, I believe, not the one that Complexity Scietists use. This topic doesn't seem to be about complexity science at all, not even a little bit. This topic seems to be using the definition you despise, the everyday understanding of "emergence". But perhaps it's me that is mistaken?
But there is one point that I find confusing.
You say "downward causation by the strong emergent phenomenon of mind properties is an observable fact",
but the Complexity Scientist I quoted says "‘emergence’ in complexity science ... does not allow for downward causation".
Is this just down to a typo, or...?
"Who cares, wins"
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
-Why is that? I only base my opinion on the epistemic void and the inability of that meaning to expanding our understanding.This is a bit petty, don't you think?
-We agree words have common usages...not intrinsic meaning.You've discovered that a word can and does carry multiple meanings, as nearly all words can.
-Again, I have no problem with different meanings, I only don't find any epistemic of philosophical value in itAnd you don't like it, because you prefer to ascribe only one meaning to that word.
-And Again I don't have a problem with different common usages of words. I only question their ability to help Science and Philosophy.You claim ownership, on behalf of Complexity Science, to the word "emergence", and to the specific meaning that Complexity Scientists intend when they use it as professional/technical jargon. The word is not yours, or theirs, to define as you see fit. Language is a co-operative venture.
-They are Using an epistemically null definition and they ignore downward causation in Strong Emergence. That is my position.So philosophers are not causing any problems here, nor are they ignoring the science. They're just using a shade of meaning that you don't like much.
-Since this is a philosophical forum, all concepts should be based and defined by our current epistemology. Complexity Science's defintion is based on direct observation of the phenomeno. So if we want our Philosophical endeavors to remain as such we should take in to account those observations and update our definitions.I'll go a little farther: the shade of meaning in use in this topic is, I believe, not the one that Complexity Scietists use. This topic doesn't seem to be about complexity science at all, not even a little bit. This topic seems to be using the definition you despise, the everyday understanding of "emergence". But perhaps it's me that is mistaken?
You are confusing Weak with Strong Emergence. Weak Emergence allows upwards causation ONLY. Downward causation is a common Phenomenon in Strong emergence. I.e. the brain produces the mind and the mind can move our hands or stress our organism through unsettling thoughts.But there is one point that I find confusing.
You say "downward causation by the strong emergent phenomenon of mind properties is an observable fact",
but the Complexity Scientist I quoted says "‘emergence’ in complexity science ... does not allow for downward causation".
Is this just down to a typo, or...?
The following short video explaining those basic concepts and relations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66p9qlpnzzY
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8266
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 8:32 pm Philosophers just ignore the science.(i.e. downward causation by the strong emergent phenomenon of mind properties is an observable fact.).
Pattern-chaser wrote:But there is one point that I find confusing.
You say "downward causation by the strong emergent phenomenon of mind properties is an observable fact",
but the Complexity Scientist I quoted says "‘emergence’ in complexity science ... does not allow for downward causation".
Is this just down to a typo, or...?
NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 10:47 am You are confusing Weak with Strong Emergence. Weak Emergence allows upwards causation ONLY. Downward causation is a common Phenomenon in Strong emergence. I.e. the brain produces the mind and the mind can move our hands or stress our organism through unsettling thoughts.
You seem to be evading my point? You posted how we should respect the opinions of scientists working in the field of complexity, but you are in direct opposition to just such a scientist. He says "does not" and you say "does". And he, the scientist, explicitly states that he is talking about "emergence" as it is used in complexity science. According to the logic you have already suggested, you are wrong, and the working scientist is right.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8266
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 9:42 am The shade of meaning in use in this topic is, I believe, not the one that Complexity Scientists use. This topic doesn't seem to be about complexity science at all, not even a little bit. This topic seems to be using the definition you despise, the everyday understanding of "emergence".
Why, when the "emergence" under discussion is not the "emergence" that complexity scientists investigate, and this topic does not concern complexity science, even in the smallest way? The meaning you insist upon is irrelevant to this topic.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 10:47 am Since this is a philosophical forum, all concepts should be based and defined by our current epistemology. Complexity Science's definition is based on direct observation of the phenomenon. So if we want our Philosophical endeavors to remain as such we should take in to account those observations and update our definitions.
"Who cares, wins"
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Am I, what is your point?You seem to be evading my point?
- I wrote we should respect the Established Science...not a scientist's opinion.You posted how we should respect the opinions of scientists working in the field of complexity,
but you are in direct opposition to just such a scientist. He says "does not" and you say "does".
-Who is this scientist who says "does not''? (does not...for what?)
And he, the scientist, explicitly states that he is talking about "emergence" as it is used in complexity science.
-Who is this scientist and why we should listen to his opinion if it is in conflict with established Science?
-You need to help me. WHo is this scientist and what is he saying ???According to the logic you have already suggested, you are wrong, and the working scientist is right.
I don't follow you.!
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
-My point was that the science in the Op is wrong.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 11:30 amPattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 9:42 am The shade of meaning in use in this topic is, I believe, not the one that Complexity Scientists use. This topic doesn't seem to be about complexity science at all, not even a little bit. This topic seems to be using the definition you despise, the everyday understanding of "emergence".
Why, when the "emergence" under discussion is not the "emergence" that complexity scientists investigate, and this topic does not concern complexity science, even in the smallest way? The meaning you insist upon is irrelevant to this topic.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 10:47 am Since this is a philosophical forum, all concepts should be based and defined by our current epistemology. Complexity Science's definition is based on direct observation of the phenomenon. So if we want our Philosophical endeavors to remain as such we should take in to account those observations and update our definitions.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8266
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
If you don't follow me, follow the link I posted with the original quote, so that there would be no confusion as to who wrote what I quoted, and what else they had to say. But I can't be bothered with this sub-sub-thread any more. You stick with your meaning (of "emergence"), taken from a discipline that has nothing to do with this topic, and do with it as you will.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 12:49 pm
-You need to help me. WHo is this scientist and what is he saying ???
I don't follow you.!
Take care; I'm done here.
"Who cares, wins"
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Ok I got your link. You say that the authors of that paper say that Strong Emergence doesn't allow downward causation?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 1:02 pmIf you don't follow me, follow the link I posted with the original quote, so that there would be no confusion as to who wrote what I quoted, and what else they had to say. But I can't be bothered with this sub-sub-thread any more. You stick with your meaning (of "emergence"), taken from a discipline that has nothing to do with this topic, and do with it as you will.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 12:49 pm
-You need to help me. WHo is this scientist and what is he saying ???
I don't follow you.!
Take care; I'm done here.
-"You stick with your meaning (of "emergence"), taken from a discipline that has nothing to do with this topic, and do with it as you will."
-If the definition of emergence doesn't describe actual phenomena and their properties in real world then the definition in this thread is philosophically useless. If our conclusions don't include or explain reality then why on earth should we use that definition?
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
I'm sticking my nose in here only because the guy with whom you were discussing this said he was done, and hasn't posted anything further over the last 12 hours. So if someone is going to ask you to comment further, I guess it has to be me.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 1:47 pmOk I got your link. You say that the authors of that paper say that Strong Emergence doesn't allow downward causation?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 1:02 pm If you don't follow me, follow the link I posted with the original quote, so that there would be no confusion as to who wrote what I quoted, and what else they had to say. But I can't be bothered with this sub-sub-thread any more. You stick with your meaning (of "emergence"), taken from a discipline that has nothing to do with this topic, and do with it as you will.
Take care; I'm done here.-If the definition of emergence doesn't describe actual phenomena and their properties in real world then the definition in this thread is philosophically useless. If our conclusions don't include or explain reality then why on earth should we use that definition?Pattern-chaser wrote: -"You stick with your meaning (of "emergence"), taken from a discipline that has nothing to do with this topic, and do with it as you will."
I've now read the paper and viewed the YouTube video that you linked to. Although I can't claim to understand it all (complexity science being completely outside my experience), it seems to me that the authors, after surveying the literature (or at least some literature) and conducting an admittedly non-representative survey, claim that strong emergence (though they don't always use that term) is not generally accepted in the field of complexity science, although they don't say it very clearly, and also seem to contradict themselves.
In their summary at the start of the paper, for example, they state: "We conclude that ... ‘emergence’ in complexity science, while intriguing to many, is still fully consistent with most forms of reductionism and does not allow for downward causation."
With my limited understanding, I take that to mean that (according to the authors of the paper) "emergence" in complexity science does not include strong emergence.
Yet they go on in the first sentence of the body of the paper to say that "Many phenomena that arise out of complex, adaptive systems are called ‘emergent’ by complexity science researchers [citations]. Such emergent phenomena are considered to be unpredictable and irreducible."
I take "irreducible" in that sentence to be referring to the concept of strong emergence.
So I don't know what the hell they're saying at the very start of the paper, unless it's the contradictory proposition that complexity science doesn't allow for strong emergence but does allow for it.
Then, after discussion of much stuff that I sort of follow but can't keep track of in my head, in the very last paragraph of the paper they say this: "We assume that the research program of complexity science is a reductionist one (although not a simple reductionist approach, see section 5.2). In that case, why is it that complexity researchers seem so committed to non-reductive materialism, and hostile to reductionist rhetoric? One explanation is that reductionism is considered to be naïve, and also to make the world seem to systematic and boring, eliminating all mystery, novelty, and excitement. Non-reductive materialism might then have some public relation value over reductionism."
That paragraph seems contradictory to me: the first sentence suggesting that the "research program of complexity science" is limited to weak emergence (since, they say, it's a reductionist program), and the very next sentence saying that researchers are "committed to non-reductive materialism" (i.e., strong emergence?). But then they end up by suggesting that the rejection of reductionism (i.e., the commitment to strong emergence?) is, in the end, all about PR.
So, the bottom line is that I'm confused.
What sense do you make of that paper?
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023