It's been my position for a while that one of the misleading issues with emergence is that (as Russ S) says the emergent properties are simply not expressible in the language one uses to describe the micro elements. To take Fodor's original example again, there is no way to talk about Gresham's law (bad money drives out good) in the language of quantum mechanics -- because quantum mechanics doesn't have the concept of money, good or bad.
If you want to call that incommensurability or lexical mismatch, I guess that's ok -- although I would recommend that one explain the problem rather than just labeling it. (It never was clear to me whether this was what Glen was getting at. We had a long private exchange and still didn't clear it up.) As you have heard me say before, the problem arises because a new level of abstraction creates and makes use of concepts that don't exist at the implementing level. That too is a fairly standard idea in computer science, although the concept of level of abstraction may not be as familiar to those outside our field. (This is Gutag's original 1997 article<http://rockfish.cs.unc.edu/204/guttagADT77.pdf%20>. This is the most relevant Wikipedia article<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_layer>. This is the NIST page<http://www.itl.nist.gov/div897/sqg/dads/HTML/abstractDataType.html>. This is how Encyclopedia.com<http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O11-abstractdatatype.html>describes it. This is Dictionary.com's<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abstract%20data%20type>definition.) So basically, the problem is less linguistic than ontological. There are new data types (e.g., money). That is an ontological issue. Money as an ontological category does not exist at the level of quantum mechanics. Of course one wants to talk about those new data types and their properties. The language one uses (to talk about,e.g., money) is necessarily different from the language one uses in describing the elements used to implement those new data type (e.g., the language of quantum mechanics). Perhaps more importantly, the new data types are defined independently of their implementation. That was the original point of Guttag's article, namely that the properties of stacks, lists, etc. can be specified without having to talk about any particular implementation -- and in fact that there can be multiple implementations, all of which will produce stacks, etc. that satisfy the direct, high level (if Glen won't object to my using the term "level") description. -- Russ A On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 1:44 AM, russell standish <[email protected]>wrote: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 01:24:47AM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > So, Russ S, > > > > when you say, > > > > "> 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." > > > > Does that mean that you are comfortable saying that emergence is actually > a > > relationship between two different properties of the same object. > > > > Not exactly. It is more a relationship between languages. It is the > presence of a property (the emergent one) expressed in one language > that is impossible to express in the other language. We would normally > say the languages are incommensurate, although Glen used a neat term > for it the other day starting with "lexical" that raised the other > Russ's eyebrows. > > > I agree that the emergent property ... "being a copying device" has to be > a > > property of the macro entity. But in this case, the CAUSE of the > emergent > > property is also an emergent property, i.e., "being composed of parts > > arranged in a double helix". > > > > Is saying that a wooden construction is strong because its members are > > formed in triangles is like saying that a ball rolls because it is round? > > > > You wouldnt be the first Russ to say that I am getting my knickers > > unnecessarily twisted over this, but it does seem .... queer .... to me > in > > someway. > > > > Um, well, maybe you are getting your knickers in a twist. I don't > really get your point, queer or no :(. > > > NIck > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > > Clark University ([email protected]) > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: russell standish <[email protected]> > > > To: <[email protected]>; The Friday Morning Applied > Complexity > > Coffee Group <[email protected]> > > > Date: 9/26/2009 8:35:52 PM > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Emergence Seminar, III: Wimsatt and Searle > > > > > > 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 > > -- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 >
============================================================ 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
