Why is it important to assume "that emergence involves a relationship between levels, of some sort"?
Wordnet defines "emergence" as "the gradual beginning or coming forth<http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=emergence>." That doesn't necessarily imply a relatioship between levels. Admittedly I haven't read the Wimsett article. Does he defined emergence as a relationship between levels? All that notwithstanding, here is an attempt to characterize emergence as a relationship between levels. Mathematically a relation is a set of pairs. So if emergence is a relation(ship) it would be the set of pairs (of levels) that reflect emergence. For example, one element in that set of pairs might be (the level of) sticks paired with (the level of) triangles constructed out of sticks. (This second level is defined deliberately narrowly. Is that a problem?) Then it seems to make sense that that pair (level of sticks, level of stick triangles) is one element of the emergence relation. With that in mind, here's a possible definition of emergence as a relation. Emergence (as a relation) is defined to be: {(A, B) | A and B are levels, where a level is (at least) a set of elements & the elements in B have properties that the elements in A don't & the elements in B are composed of elements of A} Is that a fair partial formalization of emergence as a relation(ship) between levels? I'm not absolutely committed to it. I submit it as a draft definition. Does it work? It seems to work for sticks and stick triangles. -- Russ A On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > Nick Thompson wrote > > > 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 like saying that a ball rolls because it is round? > > > > You wouldn't 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. > > > To which Russ Standish replied: > > Um, well, maybe you are getting your knickers in a twist. I don't > really get your point, queer or no :(. > > To which Nick Thompson Replies: > > NST-->I apologize for using irrelevantly evocative language. I meant > "queer" literally: "odd, unsettling", and by "knickers in a twist" I just > meant that I was "unsettled, confused." Try to read around it. > > NST-->However, please could you look at the substance of what I wrote > again? ASSUMING that one believes that emergence involves a relationship > between levels, of some sort, doesn't saying that "a wooden construction > is strong because its members are formed in triangles" fail as an example? > Since "formed in triangles" is at the same level as "strong". > > NST-->Or is the concept of level cracking under the weight, here? For > instance, notice that BOTH "strong" and "formed in triangles" are arguably > "interlevel properties", since to talk about "formed in triangles" you have > to talk about the level of components and to talk about "strong" you have > to talk about the relationship between the whole and its context. (To > demonstrate that something is strong, something outside of it has to stress > it.) So "strong because triangles" is actually a relationship between two > interlevel relationships. > > NST-->Your comments focus our attention on Bedau's concept of nominal > emergence, which is in this week's reading? Are you reading along with us? > Wimsatt? Searle? > > 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: 9/27/2009 10:44:58 PM > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Emergence Seminar, III: Wimsatt and Searle > > > > 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
