On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 07:50:53PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > All, > > As you all may remember, I had decided on the basis of my first two > readings of Wimsatt, that his was the final word on the definition of > emergence: a property of a macro-entity is emergent when it depends on the > arrangement of the micro entities [in time and/or in space]. > Unfortunately, I read it a third time. > > I woke up in the middle of the night realizing what was wrong with his > position. > > (1) Ineliminably, emergence has to do with the relation between macro and > micro entities. (I suppose somebody might challange that statement, but I > dont think anybody has so far.) > > (2) Emergent properties of a macro entity are those that are dependant on > the arrangement of the micro entities. > > (3) But "An arrangement of X's" cannot be a property of any microentity > (duh!). > > (4) There fore, whatever (2) IS a definition of, it cannot be a definition > of emergence OR emergence does not have to do with relations among levels. > > > Back to the old drawing board. > > n >
I got lost at step 4 here. The obvious syllogism of (1), (2) & (3) is that an emergent property is not a property of a micro entity. But this doesn't surprise me, as its actually my definition of emergence. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [email protected] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ 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
