This is good Russ; we are getting somewhere. we have locked horns. Now we can
PUSH.
Please see below.
N
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([email protected])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe]
----- Original Message -----
From: Russ Abbott
To: [email protected]
Cc: nthompson; ERIC P. CHARLES; [email protected]
Sent: 11/8/2009 11:06:43 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?"
OK. Then we have to ask what we mean by a property.
NST===>Agreed. And to be honest, I dont have an ambient definition. So I
guess I will have to accept yours. <===nst
One standard definition is that a property is a predicate, i.e., a function
mapping a thing to True or False. It then seems that as I mentioned before,
according to the proposed definition, non-emergent properties are those that
have factored out dependencies on the arrangement or timing of the elements
that make up the whole [thing] -- a standard example being mass.
So is that approach as good, i.e., to define the property (of properties) of
being non-emergent. A property is non-emergent if it has factored out any
dependencies on arrangement ... .
NST===>Agreed again. You lay out pefectly Wimsatt's definition of the
complement of emergence ... aggregativity. <===nst
I put it that way because if we suppose that we are talking about "reality,"
which is at one basic level an arrangement of stuff in time and space, then
when we do science or make other abstractions about the world, we sometime
factor out features of the world that we find can be ignored for certain
purposes. When we can make such abstractions and they turn out to be useful,
we have made a scientific advance.
NST===>Again. Perfect Wimsatt. I am completely on board. <===nst
So I'm not criticizing doing this: mass in Newtonian physics has worked quite
well. But doesn't this imply that according to the proposed definition,
emergent properties are those that haven't (completely) factored out that
aspect of reality?
NST===> Exactly. Now we get to the hard part. The part of Wimsatt's article
where he might be saying that one can only do science on non-emergent
properties. I am so old and forgetful that I will have to go back and look,
but this was a part of the paper we didnt discuss at length in the seminar and
I may not have "gotten" it. <===nst
Would Newtonian momentum be non-emergent because it depends on directionality
(arrangement) and speed (which depends on time)?
NST===> Oh Gosh. I need to specify "arrangement" dont I? Ugh. In other
words, just saying that all the parts are in one place is not an adequate use
of "arrangement" for W-emergence to work. I have to talk about relative
arrangement ... internal arrangement.... . I wonder what trouble THAT gets me
into. <===nst
How about statistical properties, which factor out arrangement and time?
Wouldn't the proposed definition say that pressure, for example, is
non-emergent because it doesn't depend on arrangement or time?
NST===> I think any "symmetrical" arrangement (in that mindblowing stupid way
that physicists abuse that word) of particles could not be the basis of
emergence. So, cautiously, I think I would have to agree that pressure is not
an emergent property of the gas, though,, of course it is an emergent property
of gas+vessel. I guess. <===nst
NST===>Have I walked into a crucial contradiction, here? I feel the vultures
circling overhead. <===nst
-- Russ A
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]>
wrote:
Russ,
I said: So, I suggest we define an emergent property as one that depends on
the arrangement or timing of the elements that make up the whole.
You said: According to the proposed definition of emergence that page--with
its component letters--is emergent.
I say: But a page is not a PROPERTY. I am prepared to stipulate that under
"my" defintion (Wimsatt's definition) a great many boring properties are
emergent, but you are taking it too far. It does have to be a property and the
property cannot be a restatement of the arrangement or ordering of the elements
that is the occasion for the emergence. And I do stipulate that using W.'s
definition I will later have to shoulder the burden of identifying which sorts
of emergence are interesting.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([email protected])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe]
----- Original Message -----
From: Russ Abbott
To: [email protected];nthompson
Cc: ERIC P. CHARLES; [email protected]
Sent: 11/8/2009 12:18:51 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?"
I don't think Eric's point goes very far. A page with letters on it has letters
as elements. According to the proposed definition of emergence that page--with
its component letters--is emergent. Also, it doesn't matter whether the letters
are arranged to have a meaning--in English or any other language. Any random
collection of letters is emergent according to the proposed definition. It
doesn't seem particularly useful to me to say that.
-- Russ A
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]>
wrote:
Yeah. Like Eric Said!
n
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([email protected])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe]
----- Original Message -----
From: ERIC P. CHARLES
To: Russ Abbott
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Sent: 11/7/2009 7:09:10 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?"
In an attempt to defend Nick's definition (though I liked it better when he
offered the categories of definitions than when he tried to pick one as proper):
I suspect the statement "the series of letters in this sentence depends on the
series of letters in this sentence", doesn't work, because the letters are not
an element of the letters. That is, the definition offered requires a statement
about something and its elements, not something and itself. Thus, you would
need to say that "the sentence depends on the series of letters in the
sentence", which is not terribly interesting to me, but is certainly not a
tautology or otherwise trivial.
The only way I can see for you to try to argue back is to place especial
emphasis on "the series" is the first phrase and "the letters" in the second.
However, as soon as you are willing to consider "the sequence" as a real entity
existing on a higher level, you are admitting emergence, and so the claim is
not trivial (i.e., you have implicitly admitted from the start that "a
sequence" is a variety of emergent).
Eric
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 08:35 PM, Russ Abbott <[email protected]> wrote:
If something satisfies a definition (X is emergent if the elements of x are
dependent on their arrangement ...) then what sense does it make to say that
the definition doesn't apply to if it's satisfied trivially? It's still
satisfied.
(Of course the dirt in your garden is also emergent under this criterion.)
It would seem that every property that doesn't abstract away arrangement and
time becomes emergent. The mass of an aggregation is not emergent because mass
abstracts away arrangement and time.
-- Russ A
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]>
wrote:
The arrangement is indeed dependent on the arrangement, but that's a tautology,
and I dont think I am committed to tautologies because of my allegiance to
Wimsattian emergence. The MEANING of the words of this sentence is indeed
emergent since it is dependent on the arrangement of the letters. I am happy
with the implication that a great many properties become emergent under the
defintion. Contra Searle and a bunch of other people, I think emergence is as
common as dirt .... well perhaps not quite that common.
N
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([email protected])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe]
----- Original Message -----
From: Russ Abbott
To: [email protected];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group
Sent: 11/7/2009 5:54:45 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?"
One problem with Nick's proposed definition is that it will label as emergent
all sorts of uninteresting properties -- such as the sequence of characters in
this message. I'm not talking about the semantics of the message or anything
at all interesting, just the sequence of characters. That satisfies both of
Nick's criteria.
So does the arrangement of molecules of air in your kitchen at exactly 3:00pm
tomorrow. That satisfies the criterion of depending on the arrangement of
elements.
-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
Cell phone: 310-621-3805
o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]>
wrote:
I agree that defitions, like everything else in science, should be heuristic.
So, I suggest we define an emergent property as one that depends on the
arrangement or timing of the elements that make up the whole. In so defining
emergence, we are led to ask, in every case of putative emergence, what is the
particular arrangment or timing of presentation of the parts that makes this
property possible.
Now, the tricky bit comes when we SUSPECT that a property is emergent but have
not yet discovered (or think perhaps we may NEVER discover) the arrangments of
parts that makes it possible. I gather that some properties of CA's fall into
that category. Not sure what to do. We could, I suppose, define a loose
category of "putative emergence" using surprise as a criterion, but reserve the
term "emergent" itself for a property whose dependence on arrangment and/or
timeing has been demonstrated.
It's heuristic because it leads to research.
Nick
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([email protected])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe]
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Roberts
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: 11/7/2009 10:02:05 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?"
100%, complete, total unequivocal agreement w/Glen.
--Doug
--
Doug Roberts
[email protected]
[email protected]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:15 AM, glen e. p. ropella
<[email protected]> wrote:
Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 11/05/2009 05:04 PM:
> I think your rejection of emergence applies only to (2) above.... and
> possibly (4), if we understand "no way" to mean "no way we have thought of
> yet". But I bet you disagree.
Naaa. I don't really disagree. I said I TEND to think that emergence
is fictitious. Until I see a definition or construction of it that I
can _use_ to get my work done, it's a useless concept, regardless of
whether it exists or not. I don't frankly care if it exists. What
matters is whether it can be used for some purpose (other than passing
the time arguing with bright people on e-mail lists ;-).
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com
============================================================
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
Eric Charles
Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
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
