Dear Vincent,

a part of the answer was discussed by senior authors like R. U. Ayres, Koffman (santa fé institute) or in the 2000s a group of thermodynamic and ecology specialist around S. Jorgensen in Danemark. In France an ecologist started to write on advanced properties of ecosystems and built a part of the answer: Serge Frontier. See also Buzz Holling and the panarchic generic cycle...

My opinion is that biological systems, at the ecology integrative level (Biosphere), have meta properties (forcing functions and target-functions) that give state properties of the systems when they move frome a state to another in the complexification process (négentropic: flows catch chaos to produce panarchic structures), including man. you can predict some states and bifurcations at a certain range of value... etc... the problem is that human brain cannot catch all the complexity and mathematic tools are limited... artistic or spiritual approachs may be also efficient, when you see how scientists are obliged to simplify models to run them...and get answers

In geology, the emergence and disappearance of some organisms remains a puzzling question, although there are some explanations.

Some phases are observed to emerge out of the background noise, for seismic, hydroacoustic, and seismic data. Others are impulsive transients.

By the way,

Emergence is when a system becomes complex and produces new structures and new fonctions.

The emergence of human species, with brain and tools, exosomatic energies are domesticated through rational knowledge or experience-deductions, brain gets energy from body (endosomatic - food chain) but this small amount of energy is able to drive hudge amounts through industrial and domestic metabolism, worldwide... and change the Biosphere trajectory with same bifurcations like geological-tectonic ones.

Well, finally, I am not sure that any new structures did appear in this recent process... just an isomorphic and superdevelopped form of what ants-termites or some plecopteres are able to do...

There are two schools among ecologists considering that the human made systems is emergent or not, what are the criteria, and does this worldwide connected system driven by human brain and community became a system hierarchically at the same level, thermodynamicaly and on the evolution prcesses, like the Biosphere without Man...? This will determine how the Biosphere with Man can become a new system ; a patnership between native systems, secondary man-made systems and artificial/transformed life support systems created by Man... Do you see the issues ? A part of the mergence of Man industrial systems is isomorphic but some functions and structures are new and the metabolism is different from native ecosystems... Not sure robots or biontes are the best example of the human emergence... Society organisation and information is more significant.

Look this answer is a chat... any paper may develop seriously..?

I do not agree that things emerge from everywhere.

Thermodynamic demonstrate what amergence is on the bio-^physical point of view. Many mataphors, extensions were used about emergence, especially in the social sciences and cultural creations...

Not the same logical levels... just different definition of the emergence of really new things... that did not exist before...

"Taxis—order, series; any level of reality, constituted by seira in which the distinctive property of a particular god or henad is successively mirrored; the chain of being proceeds from simplicity to complexity and subsequently from complexity to simplicity; the hierarchy of taxeis establish the planes of being or world-orders (diakosmoi)." --Algis Uždavinys

Well,

Continuing the discussion is not previsible. Anyone may stop here, depending the interest and intentions... chat.

New comments in an information transmission is not emergence on my point of view.

What would be a new structure ? shifting to peosy or transmititing important geostrategic information or secrets through a banal chatting ?

Not sure on the point of view of the contents of signs and information as a code in a canal... emergence has to be a meta conversation... it is not.

My prevision... we will not catch more attention with chatting and then, will give up. A new conversation may be a real work, through community plateform on finding good examples of emergence satisfying averybody and build a new theory ?

Let's see if the plateform creates emergence of relevant concepts from chatting... I was curious to send a line in the pool. Thanks to Vincent.

Regards

If by emergence you mean that something emerges from some underlying concept in a form far simpler, then thermodynamics itself would qualify. Heat is the random kinetic energy of the constituent particles, but you would never calculate that motion. Instead, we have the concept of heat, which is a sort of integrated energy. My personal view is that gravity may be an emergent property from wave particle duality. I am not sure whether these sort of things are what you mean.

Well,

What I have learned in my field of research (ecosystems and Biosphere theory) is more or less rigorously what follows:

Thermodynamics of biological/ecological systems show that a part of the metabolism is dedicated to structures (body) and at the ecosystem scale, some calculations in energy/matter conversions following 4 principles of thermodynamics, when respecting energy conservation and entropy limits, structures become informations instead of mesurable erngy (a part of the flow)... etc... recent developments of the ecosystems thermodynamics drive to a definition of emergence considering systems of organisms in evolution.... well, some "goal-functions" of the energetic assesment of the ecosystem are diversity of organismes, productivity... a system can change but all solutions are more or less previsibles... excepted if in a particular context some organisms have new behavior... or on other scales have new organs or capacities and change the wellknown system... human species is one of the species that changed drastically the living systems and Biosphere, more than any other species... Some ecologists (thermodynamics specialists) consider that emergence is a part of ecosystems evolution = succession of ecosystems (not the same scale than organisms evolution) and trivial. Others argue that brain for human, and functions around was the condition for a "real" emergence and give arguments for an "anthropocene era" theory... Thermodynamics became also an argument after Jorgensen and coleagues in the 2000, that developped a "new Ecology" theory... etc... Finally, emergence is a property of highly complex systems, driven by non linear, development, isomorphic processes but by disruptive birfucations...etc... Out of this field of biological systems it looks to me that emergence is often used abusively like a new stage of the same system development. In ecology, we have good indicators to consider and mesure what is developement and cycles of "evolution" (panarchic cycle and paterns from Buzz Holling)... I am curious about emergence definition in other fields than ecology and biology... let's see

Emergence is not a simple thing. On the basis of whether higher-level properties and laws are deducible from their lower-level counterparts we may distinguish between the weak (in principle, deducibility is possible) and the synchronous (in principle, deducibility is impossible) versions of emergence. There is also a third, the so called diachronous version of emergence, where the situation is more complicated. Her, we assume that in principle, the higher-level properties are deducible from their lower-level counterparts, nevertheless at the same time we claim that the deduction is not feasible in fact. The reason lies in a high sensitivity of a diachronously emergent system for the infinitesimally small changes of values of system's dynamical parameters, spanning into our limitations to accurately physically determine the values of these parameters. Here, the prediction of higher-level (systemic) properties is impossible, when only low-level data are accessible. It is still possible roughly and in a more qualitative than quantitative way to describe such nonlinear system's behavior on a higher level of organization. Among biological systems we can find many examples of all three, weakly, diachronously and synchronously, emergent characteristics. This fact is extremely important from the perspective of searching for universal laws of biological form and organization.

I agree with Igor... We have a part of the answer and the issue is to have interpretations from specialists in different fields of research.

Thanks, chating was interesting for me to understand this function of the plateform.

Quite reactive. I will think about posting questions, but not so large like Vincent's.

Thank you Vincent for initaitive.

Regards

Kenneth M Towe

The creative power of the cosmos is contemplation (theoria) and intellection (noesis).

It's not the principles that emerges. (The principles are eternal divine archetypes.) What emerges is the manifested (informed) hierarchical reality:

"the manifested reality is thus arranged as a hierarchy of chains that embrace divine, angelic, daimonic, heroic, human, and irrational levels (including animals, plants, and minerals), all dependent on their proper divine henad" --Algis Uždavinys

The intellect is the image of the One. The soul is the image of the intellect. Time is the image of eternity. (Time is not eternal.) Space is the image of infinity. (Space is not infinite.) And, in general, the below is the image of the above.

Thank you Igor I was turning around.

No rules should be followed – this is only a discussion to know some problems from more sites. You ( Kenneth M Towe

Temptation is to answer...

Well, coming back to one of my anwsers, I question myself about emergence metaphor in social sciences and some fields of research.

In biology and ecology, thermodynamics basis allow to consider emergence, as a very precise state of living systems, when complexifying, producing new structures (cells, organs) or networks and autoorganized/hetero-organized flows of materials and energy, and information/structures. For me what Laws (set of laws) mean for Igor, are "goal functions" and energetic overheads (see Ulanovicz–Maryland) that describe emergence of systems organized hierarchically in ecocomplexs, as a pattern of subsystems in the Biosphere. The geometry is fractal (no significant scales and no boundaries). Systems (ecosystems) follow cycles of maturation and creative destruction (the Holling eight), but keep advantageous structures (components and flows). Emergence can be driven by new species or not (systems organize similarly when destroyed-disturbed. But systems can reach new hierarchic levels in the Biosphere including others. Evolution of organisms produce emergence as an answer to new potential functions/possibilities of their environment. And evolution of ecosystems (ecological succession through communities and bioturbations) can produce emergence with new values of the networks caracteristics (goal functions or state variables), meaning laws by Igor... Conclusion: some kind of emergence, especially in litterature, psychology, language, are not? Depending how we figure the reference system. Take it easy...I'm just thinking (research).

(From Wikipedia: emergentism): John Stuart Mill outlined his version of emergentism in System of Logic (1843). Mill argued that the properties of some physical systems, such as those in which dynamic forces combine to produce simple motions, are subject to a law of nature he called the "Composition of Causes". According to Mill, emergent properties are not subject to this law, but instead amount to more than the sums of the properties of their parts. A study that demonstrate this principle (emergent laws and principles) in ecosystems is the following: Solé, R. and Bascompte, J., 2012. Self-Organization in Complex Ecosystems.(MPB-42) (Vol. 58). Princeton University Press.

According with Igor, emergence iis not a question of species evolution. The time scale is shorter... in ecosystems at a high level of complexity, non linear systems and energetic flows dominate, according to hoaw information (embodied) incease in the network of relations between components... etc... emergence identification depends on the representation of the initial system, like Igor suggests in reference to ecosystems. In most "human behavior" (social) sciences, considering language orientated concepts like a system is a metaphor because it is difficult to link energy flow of the organ "brain" and the system of imaginary objects that build thinking and behavior. Even at the frontier to day, cognitive sciences are not at this stage of "mesure" and "modeling".

Let's think further ?

I see no contradiction... Please keep civilities...

Mr Towe. There is no competition. Just chating with colleagues, urstraem the official research projects. Buzzword generator refeers to major authors like Ulanovicz, Jorgensen and al. Holling... and complexification of the representation of reality so called advanced or frontier of science... It seems that your knowledge is lying in some standards for graduate students? Reducing ecosystem to food chains and species. Ecology to day is far beyond. I am just trying to make theories fit together through a concept : metabolism...natural/native systems and organisms metabolism follow some accounting convention (Koijmann)... industrail and human driven systems are following other conventions (Ayres, Giancarlo...) and thermodynamic principles are not respected with same hypothesis... Read my essential reference in this field wich is Chapter Fisheries and Aquaculture Sustainability

Therefore, if we come to the initial question and not to its following ramifications, the answer for the field of biology the ability and accuracy for prediction are not easy. As I told in my first comment there are at least 3 modes of emergence and you can do more accurate predictions only after you 1) find that the studied phenomenon (system) is emergent and 2) you are able to identify the laws that govern the system under consideration. Consequently, you would not be able to demonstrate any better power of prediction unless you already know the emergent properties (principles, laws). But when you know the system’s higher (irreducible) laws together with the reducible ones, your predictive power regarding the behavior of the system may be greatly enhanced.

Igor, isn't every phenomenon emergent?

Following emergentism, only phenomena that cannot be explained by the laws and principles governing the parts (or some basic particles) of a system can be truly considered as emergent. In physics, for instance, superfluid helium has emergent properties regarding ordinary He atoms, since the wave function of the superfluid state cannot be derived form the knowledge of the wave function of individual He atoms. The behavior of ordinary He gas is not emergent, while the superfluid is.

Igor, but the reason why some phenomena "cannot be explained" is because we cannot explain them; and we cannot explain them because we do not understand them; and we do not understand them because we do not understand their causes. Every effect is emergent with respect to its cause(s). And this has been known for millennia: The second book of Samyutta Nikāya is Nidānavagga, which is translated into English as The Book of Causation, but could as well be called The Book of Emergence. Compare the very meaning of the word emergence---the rising (of a submerged body) out of the water---with Buddha seated on a lotus . . .

All phenomena are emergent.

Martin Klvana, we speak about different things. You say that phenomena with unknown causes are emergent. Then every quantum event is emergent and since the macroscopic world is composed of innumerable quantum events, yes, everything is emergent. But this is only one of possible outlooks. Yet, what I speak about are not phenomena, it is about emergent laws and principles in systems in the sense that the system is more than its parts. Bertalanffy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Bertalanffy ), the father of theoretical biology and one of the fathers of the general systems theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory ), aptly explained this principle.

Well, I hoped that I answered this question three days ago – evidently I was not successful. Let me put it in other words. If you are sure your explored object (phenomenon) does not represent a system with emergent characteristics, then you proceed to investigate and understand only its parts together with their interaction and you may be pretty sure into your predictive ability and accuracy. On the other hand, if the system exhibits emergent properties, then you will have to investigate how it works as a whole, knowing and understanding only the working of its parts will not help you to predict its behavior. 8 days ago I put down a reference to a book about the ecosystem as an emergent system. And there abound studies of this kind; even genomics is striving to treat the genome as a whole with its emergent properties. The latter may be identified only when you study the genome as a whole – the knowledge of genes does not suffice to have a sufficient predictive power.

Hello everyone,

Kenneth Towe said: “Things emerge everywhere. The process was what was asked... and about our understanding of it. What we can predict? In order to answer such a broad ranging question a specific example from the author needs to be examined?”

___________

Kenneth is correct. Things emerge everywhere.

Emergence is the process and event of the coming into existence of newly occurring pattern-of-material-organization of structure (any pattern in relation to space) or process (any pattern in relation to time) due to the motion of matter relative to other matter. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316609942_The_Intrinsic_Nature_of_Emergence--With_Illustrations

Since all matter in the universe is involved in some form of motion, the creation of newly occurring pattern-of-material-organization is universal, omnipresent—occurring everywhere there is matter in the universe.

___________

Kenneth pointed out the need to examine a specific example.

I agree, I need to provide examples. The problem is that, for the most part, my work involves figuring out the intrinsic nature of the foundations of the universe—the intrinsic nature of space, time, and motion, and the universal foundations of such factors as isomorphy, emergence, cause, transformation-points, and so on, as discussed in my papers. I have given examples of emergence as it occurs at these foundational levels, such as emergence due to sequential-enhancement, emergence due to combinatorial-enhancement, and emergence due to transformation-points.

Emergence at higher levels, from atoms to galaxies, involves all the foundational forms, from emergence based on sequential-enhancement to emergence based on coherence (the bonding of one part of matter to another part). Describing emergence at levels above the foundational levels requires the specialized knowledge of the various disciplines.

There can be new forms of emergence that are themselves emergent at each of the levels of the hierarchic organization of material reality, from atoms to galaxies. The process of emergence develops, becoming more complex as additional factors play roles in the process at succeedingly higher levels.

While understanding the foundations of emergence enables understanding of emergence at the higher levels, the details of the processes of emergence at those levels are not well known. I think that to achieve understanding of the more developed forms of emergence, and to achieve understanding of how that knowledge can enable prediction, it is necessary to combine—to integrate—three levels of knowledge.

1. The foundational factors, such as space, time, motion, pattern-of-material-organization, cause, and the others, that play roles in the basic stages of the development of emergence.

2. The consequent stages of the process of emergence from that based on sequential-enhancement to that based on coherence of matter one part to another.

3. The specialized knowledge of the various disciplines.

This procedure should result in the identification of the nature of the processes and events of emergence at the higher levels.

The new forms of emergence, the new processes of emergence, at the various levels will be isomorphies, and once their intrinsic patterns-of-organization are learned, they can be used to achieve understanding in other situations where they occur. They can be used as predictive tools. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312488151_Emergence_Is_an_Isomorphy

The goal, then, is to identify the emergent forms of the process of emergence as they occur and play creative roles at the levels of the different disciplines. And then to map them out, to create diagrams of the patterns of those processes of emergence.

Hello everyone,

Kenneth Towe said: ”Well, in my field of research, life on Earth emerged after the physical conditions emerged to make life possible. Once life finally emerged the process of photosynthesis emerged and a change in the planetary environment emerged. In a process called evolution new things are always emerging in the biosphere. Maybe not from everywhere but surely everywhere. New species are emerging but taxonomists have yet to see them, much less name them so that they can emerge in the literature.”

___________

For the general understanding of emergence, there are two important components of Kenneth’s statement.

First, it is a statement listing high level complex cases of emergence—the emergence of complex physical conditions suitable for the emergence of life . . . the emergence of the extraordinarily complex process of biological evolution . . . and the emergence of photosynthesis, and so forth. This is high level broad scale understanding of the role of emergence.

Second, it is a statement of the role of existential-dependency in emergence. Existential-dependency occurs when the existence of one thing is dependent on the existence of another factor. Kenneth’s statement points out that the emergence of life was existentially-dependent on the prior emergence of the physical conditions that make life possible. The emergence of photosynthesis was existentially-dependent on the prior emergence of life, and so on. At these high level stages of emergence there is a sequence of stages each of which is existentially-dependent on the prior stages. This sequential-dependency of following stages on the occurrence of prior stages is common with emergence.

I think that Vincent Vesterby aptly explained the phenomenon of emergence in a comprehensive way and also the way the knowledge of emergence can be used to make predictions (the basic question here). As an interesting item concerning emergence I would only add that apparently the emergence of life was much less demanding than the emergence of the first Eukaryote and also less demanding then the emergence of the first multicellular organism.

Hello everyone,

Kenneth Towe said: “PHILOSOPHY...existential is.concerned with existence, especially human existence as viewed in the theories of existentialism....a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

That has emerged as a result of my looking around as an individual to find out what all this is about? :)”

___________

Kenneth is correct in that the term existential refers to existence.

The term refers to the existence of anything and everything in the universe that exists. Because humans comprise such a small component of the universe, existentialism therefore also constitutes only a small part of the philosophy of existence.

Philosophy in general is supposed to be an open exploration of the nature of reality in all of its aspects. When a body of philosophical thought gets an –ism attached to it, that body of philosophy tends to become a relatively set belief system concerning that topic.

It often happens that when someone makes a statement about a topic where there is an -ism attached to the name of the topic, the statement gets categorized in a knee-jerk fashion into the ­–ism even though that was not the intention of the person who made the statement. The result is that the statement does not get the proper consideration it deserves.

In the philosophy of reality, the philosophy of that which exists, it is best to avoid –ism’s because they tend to become set bodies of thought, and because they can lead to arbitrary categorization.

The philosophy of reality does not fall within, nor include, the philosophical systems of emergentism, realism, physicalism, or materialism.

Vincent & Igor, i have seen many occurrences of "matter" and "material" and "physical" in your comments but no occurrence of (correct me if i have missed any) "immaterial" and "metaphysical." It seems to me that you both intentionally avoid "immaterial" and "metaphysical" but i don't understand why would you do that in the context of emergence.

Is it possible to fully comprehend the phenomenal (material, physical) realm without understanding its noumenal (immaterial, metaphysical) source? Material and immaterial, physical and metaphysical, etc. are two sides of the same coin, or, more aptly, the filled and hollow parts of the bi disc (in which the hollow part is the source of the filled part).

If we understand the emergence of the phenomenal realm then we can say that we really know something. Emergencies within the phenomenal realm are minutiae.

Hello everyone,

Martin Klvana said: “Vincent & Igor, i have seen many occurrences of "matter’ and ‘material’ and ‘physical’ in your comments but no occurrence of (correct me if i have missed any) ‘immaterial’ and ‘metaphysical.’ It seems to me that you both intentionally avoid ‘immaterial’ and ‘metaphysical’ but i don't understand why would you do that in the context of emergence.”

___________

There is only one component of the universe that exists in an immaterial manner—space. Space exists as immaterial place. Material matter occupies and moves around in immaterial spatial-place.

The three-dimensional extension of immaterial spatial-place is infinite. Space constitutes an existential-context, a place in which to exist, for all else that exists or that could exist.

Because the three-dimensional quality of space leaves no place for a fourth dimension or for any other spatially based universes, the spatial-place in which we exist is the only space there is. To exist is to exist in space. To not exist in space is to not exist.

Space exists, and it continues to exist. The continuing-existence of space plays in the universe all the roles that can be rationally and factually attributed to time. The continuing-existence of space is time. Time is an aspect of the existence of space, and thus has an immaterial manner of existing.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299437469_The_Identification_of_the_Intrinsic_Nature_of_Time

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309619974_Paul_Davies_and_Why_Time_Is_Not_a_Flow

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313604997_TEMPORAL_NATURALISM_ANALYSIS_OF_THE_PAPER_BY_LEE_SMOLIN

Whenever I say something about space or time, I am referring to something that exists in an immaterial manner.

The process of emergence occurs in space and takes time to occur.

___________

Metaphysical is a philosophical term. It refers to philosophical concepts. These particular concepts have no reality-referents. They do not refer to anything that exists. There is nothing that exists or that could exist that is meta- to the physical material world.

There are two fundamental ways in which something can exist—immaterial and material.

Either something exists in a material manner because it is matter, or its existence is based on matter in the sense that it is something matter does, such as motion and all other forms of process.

All processes, from motion to biological evolution, have a material basis. It is matter that moves through space. Motion cannot occur in the absence of matter. No process can occur in the absence of matter.

Metaphysical concepts have no place in the philosophy of reality, the philosophy of that which exists—the philosophy that strives to achieve an understanding of the intrinsic nature of the universe. There is no role for metaphysical concepts in the analysis of the intrinsic nature of emergence.

Vincent, (1) what is your definition of space---a three-dimensional void?, (2) is there any evidence for the infinity of space?, (3) if space is immaterial it has no spatial dimensions, so how can something without spatial dimensions have three spatial dimensions? and how can matter occupy and move around in something that has no dimensions?, and (4) if space is immaterial and infinite, it is eternal, and if so, it is the source of everything---now, physics deals with material entities and metaphysics with immaterial entities---if space exists as an immaterial entity, it is a domain of metaphysics, and if it is a domain of metaphysics, it does not have, according to you, real existence, i.e., you say that space both exists and does not exist, which is absurd, because it is impossible for one statement to be both true and false.

(Space is not infinite; space is not eternal; space has no independent existence; space is not the first principle; there must be something logically prior to space, something that creates space.)

Vincent said:

"HOW WOULD AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS OF EMERGENCE ENHANCE THE ABILITY AND ACCURACY OF PREDICTION IN YOUR FIELD OF RESEARCH? For instance, what roles does emergence play in inorganic chemistry, in the earth sciences, in organic chemistry, the molecular biology of the cell, physiology, psychology, sociology, in ecology, economics, or in astrophysics?"

Dear Vincent ...

Before answering this question I need to provide my understanding of emergence, because it seems nobody agree what emergence means.

As we know, the emergence was first introduced by early British emergentists at the end of 19th century. That time it was assumed to be a the mystical, almost Devine phenomenon that cannot be in principle explained by science. The chemical reactions were the best examples they come up in support of this theory.

In beginning of the 20th century after booming successes in physics and chemistry provided a satisfactory explanation for those chemical reactions, emergentism was rejected by most philosophers as the theory without any scientific foundations and as the idea that discounts the progress in sciences and obstructs the scientific quest to deeper knowledge. Since then emergentism has been sitting in the background, often ridiculed for its mysticism.

At the end of 20th century the expectations for the traditional reductive approaches failing short of expectations that led to the rise of interest to holistic philosophy, emergence concept started gradually creeping into the mainstream because of its claim that reductive methodology cannot explain the complex systems in terms of underlying natural laws. Emergence always strives on inability to explain phenomena to its roots. In the past, this thesis was nourished by lock of understanding of chemistry, but it was fell apart when chemistry was explained in terms of physical laws. These days emergence learned its lesson and now it is aligned not with mysterious divine-like forces, but united with the cutting-edge science of complexity and computational methods. Within complexity sciences emergence means an inability to provide accurate prediction due to limitation of computational methods. This limitation believed is fundamental because required unlimited computational ability to predict dynamic behavior of non-linear systems. We need to remember that this limitation is based on the notion of digital computer which concept, known as Turing machine, was invented in the 1935.

Based on this understanding of emergence I believe it is purely epistemological concepts that designate our inability to understand some phenomena. Now lets me to answer your question:

“HOW WOULD AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS OF EMERGENCE ENHANCE THE ABILITY AND ACCURACY OF PREDICTION IN YOUR FIELD OF RESEARCH?”

My answer: IT DOESN"T

Mark Iosim: …I believe it is purely epistemological concepts that designate our inability to understand some phenomena…

On September 3 I wrote that there are at least three concepts of emergence (weak, synchronous and diachronous). The first and possibly the second could be interpreted as “epistemological”, i.e. that the emergence is designated only on the basis of our inability to disentangle all pertaining causes and conditions. However, there remains the third possibility (diachronous), where emergence is understood as an ontological property of the system in question. The paradigm for this type of emergence can be found in the physical finding that superfluid helium has emergent properties with reference to ordinary He atoms, since the wave function of the superfluid state cannot be derived from the knowledge of the wave function of individual He atoms (I wrote about that already on Sept.14). Therefore, the superfluid He system obeys a new (emergent) law regarding the laws of ordinary He gas atoms.

Igor, but "wave function" is a concept, not an attribute of helium atoms. Is there any different concept that explains "the superfluid state of helium"? If yes, apply that concept . . . and your concept of emergence disappears; if not, your "helium" example falls into the category "we don't understand it, therefore, we can only say: it emerges (mysteriously), in other words, we don't understand its cause(s)."

Martin, I agree with you.

Igor, The diachronous emergence is based on notion that our today’s knowledge is complete and nothing else could be learn tomorrow to provide the rational explanation for the phenomenon you call emergence. The history of science is a good example of explaining what in the past seems to unexplainable. Regarding your specific example with “super fluidity that cannot be derived from the knowledge of the wave function of individual atom” we should remember, as Martin mentioned, that the wave function is an abstract “mathematical description of the isolated quantum system” that doesn’t have realistic explanation and therefore doesn’t provide much knowledge to begin with. Instead it only allows to calculate the probability of quantum event. The fathers of quantum mechanics Bohr and Heisenberg left us with so called Copenhagen interpretation according to which the wave function is nothing to do with explanation of what is going on in reality and that concept of reality is outdated. Einstein is strongly disagree with such interpretation and up to end of his life insisted that the quantum mechanics provide useful results, but is fundamentally incomplete. I happen to agree this assestment and therefore I am not surprised that many physical and chemical properties cannot be derived from quantum mechanics. One more critical point. While trying to derive the properties of the system from the properties of their parts we need to be sure that we know all properties of those parts. If those parts were studied in isolation those parts will not reveal all their properties. For example, we know that an electron possesses an electrical charge, but we cannot observe this properties unless electron interacts with another charge. We do not declare that the charge of an electron emerges during interaction. Instead we agree that the electron always possess the charge (whether we observe it or not) and reveals this property only during interactions. Similarly, the wave function as mathematical description of the isolated quantum system cannot explain the system phenomena. The phenomenon of super fluidity where He atoms interacts with each other, with the wall of vessels, gravitation field, air, etc. cannot be explained in terms of wave function of isolated He. This incomplete knowledge of initial condition presented in you example you presented as ontological (diachronous) emergence

Martin: "wave function" is a concept, not an attribute of helium atoms. Is there any different concept that explains "the superfluid state of helium"? If yes, apply that concept . . . and your concept of emergence disappears

But all science – and we are discussing science here, don’t we? – is about concepts! There are two outlooks on the relation between scientific models of reality (theories) and this reality itself. If we are realists, then we believe that the models are true representatives of reality, that they are only projections of reality into our thought-patterns. Instrumentalists, however, believe that the models are only a special rearrangement of our experience stemming from research and that they speak nothing about “ding an sich” (thing-in-itself).

The superfluid He was only an example. To be more straight – if we believe (and it is only a belief – scientific society does not possess any apriori argument nor an irrefutable proof) that the parts of a system have all causal powers for the behavior of the system (reductionism) then emergentism disappears. if we believe that the system is fundamentally more than its parts, then we are emergentists. But if we treat the superfluid He system as fundamentally composed of He atoms and we find that we cannot explain its behavior from the standpoint of these elements than this is an important evidence for diachronous emergentism.

Martin: "wave function" is a concept, not an attribute of helium atoms. Is there any different concept that explains "the superfluid state of helium"? If yes, apply that concept . . . and your concept of emergence disappears

Igor: But all science – and we are discussing science here, don’t we? – is about concepts!

Igor,

Yes, you can say that all science is about concepts. However, those concepts are linked to reality by means of attempting to explain it. The only exception I know is the quantum mechanics that according to its Copenhagen interpretation rejects the reality of quantum world. The generation of students in physics who insisted on understanding the physical meaning of quantum mechanics were told ‘shut up and calculate’, because quantum mechanics doesn’t have any other meaning outside of abstract mathematics. The rest of us who read the popular books on quantum mechanics were told that we don’t understand quantum mechanics because of limitation of our brain to understand complex abstract concepts.

I believe that quantum mechanics is fundomentaly incomplete and the gap between quantum mechanics and the rest of physics is the main reason we cannot reduce physics to quantum mechanics, and this gap increases when we move to chemistry and biology. And this gap in our knowledge is the fertile ground for emergentism.

29 Oct 2018

Hello everyone,

Martin Klvana said: “Vincent, (1) what is your definition of space---a three-dimensional void?, . . .”

___________

Since emergence takes place in space, it is good to have an accurate understanding of the intrinsic nature of space. Space is three-dimensional immaterial place. The extension of spatial-place is infinite, and because space is immaterial, it cannot change in any way—it cannot move, curve, shrink, or expand.

The term void does not actually refer to an intrinsic quality of space. It refers to whether or not there is something, some form of substantiality or matter, in the immaterial three-dimensional place, that is, occupying spatial-place.

As far as has been determined, space is nearly filled with some form of substantiality or matter, dark matter being a recent addition to what matter is known to exist and occupy space.

Vincent

30 Oct 2018

Hello everyone,

Martin Klvana said: “(2) is there any evidence for the infinity of space?, . . .”

___________

Infinity refers to space extending without limit. Since it is not possible to observe the limitless quality of something that exists without limit, it is not possible to prove by that kind of observation the existence of the limitless quality.

The understanding that space extends without limit comes from examining and understanding the intrinsic nature of the part of space that we can observe.

Space can be observed to exist as place. Matter can be seen to occupy that place.

The spatial-place itself does not appear to be substantial in any way, and further, for space to play the role in the universe as a place matter can occupy, it is not necessary for space to be substantial. As a place that matter, substantiality, can occupy, space can be nothing more than immaterial three-dimensional place.

To attribute substantiality to space is an unnecessary speculation, and a suitable target for Occam’s razor.

That which is immaterial does not have any intrinsic qualities by which it can initiate change within itself. Space cannot change—it cannot move, curve, contract, or expand. Space has no intrinsic qualities by which it could limit the extension of spatial-place.

Thus, space is infinite because it is immaterial.

Because space is immaterial, it does not have any intrinsic qualities by which it could have interactive relations with matter. Substantial matter cannot have any effect on immaterial space. Matter cannot limit the extension of immaterial three-dimensional spatial-place.

Barring baseless speculation, there does not appear to be any way in which space could not be infinite.

Space is infinite because of what it is—immaterial place.

So, because matter appears to occur essentially everywhere in space, and because all matter appears to be involved in some kind of motion, and because it is the motion of matter relative to other matter that results in the creation of newly existing patterns-of-material-organization—the occurrence of emergence—that occurrence of emergence throughout the universe is probably infinite.

Vincent

30 Oct 2018

Hello everyone,

Martin Klvana said: “. . . (3) if space is immaterial it has no spatial dimensions, so how can something without spatial dimensions have three spatial dimensions?, . . .”

___________

This is a case where science shows its worth. Science is based on observation.

A person might think that because something is immaterial, it could not have spatial-dimensions. But if that person looks at space—observes space—then it would be possible to see that immaterial space exists in a three-dimensional manner. It is possible to move around in the three-dimensionality of space. It is possible to observe a three-dimensional object occupying space. The space the three-dimensional object occupies is three-dimensional.

To say that space has no spatial-dimensions is a baseless speculation. In science, observation comes first. Then hypotheses are made about what the observation did not show. Those hypotheses are speculations, but they are based on, originate from, the prior observations.

___________

Martin Klvana said: “. . . (3) . . . and how can matter occupy and move around in something that has no dimensions?, . . .”

___________

Observation shows that space has three-dimensions, and observation also shows that matter does occupy and does move around in immaterial three-dimensional space.

Look first, philosophize after.

Vincent

30 Oct 2018

Hello everyone,

Martin Klvana said: “. . . (4) if space is immaterial and infinite, it is eternal, . . .”

___________

Apparently so, and due to the same factor that renders it infinite. The immateriality of space leaves it with no intrinsic qualities that could make space either come into existence or to cease to exist and thus not be eternal.

And because the immateriality of space makes it incapable of having interactive relations with matter, matter cannot make space come into existence or cease to exist.

___________

Martin Klvana said: “. . . and if so, it is the source of everything, . . .”

___________

Space cannot be the source of anything. Due to the immateriality of space, it lacks any intrinsic qualities by which anything could come from it.

___________

Martin Klvana said: “. . . now, physics deals with material entities and metaphysics with immaterial entities---if space exists as an immaterial entity, it is a domain of metaphysics,, . . .”

___________

Material objects occupy space and move around in space. Material objects form patterns-of-organization in space. Space exists, and it is immaterial.

Physics deals with the real world, that which exists. Metaphysics deals with ideas, specifically ideas that do not have reality-referents that exist in the real world.

Because space is real, because it exists, immaterial space is an appropriate subject for physicists to study.

Regarding metaphysics, I will quote from the beginning of this discussion.

Metaphysical is a philosophical term. It refers to philosophical concepts. These particular concepts have no reality-referents. They do not refer to anything that exists. There is nothing that exists or that could exist that is meta- to the physical material world.

There are two fundamental ways in which something can exist—immaterial and material. Either something exists in a material manner because it is matter, or its existence is based on matter in the sense that it is something matter does, such as motion and all other forms of process.

All processes, from motion to biological evolution, have a material basis. It is matter that moves through space. Motion cannot occur in the absence of matter. No process can occur in the absence of matter.

Metaphysical concepts have no place in the philosophy of reality, the philosophy of that which exists—the philosophy that strives to achieve an understanding of the intrinsic nature of the universe. There is no role for metaphysical concepts in the analysis of the intrinsic nature of emergence.

___________

Martin Klvana said: “. . . and if it is a domain of metaphysics, it does not have, according to you, real existence, i.e., you say that space both exists and does not exist, . . .”

___________

First, because space does exist, and plays significant roles in the universe that are important in the domain of physics, space is a fit subject for physics. Metaphysicians can make idle speculations about space, but the analysis of the actual intrinsic nature of space belongs with observation based science.

Second, I did not say nor imply that space does not have real existence. Further, I did not say “. . . that space both exists and does not exist, . . .”

For the intellectual integrity of the discussion, please do not make false claims about what other people in the discussion have said.

___________

Martin Klvana said: “(Space is not infinite [On what grounds do you make this statement?]; space is not eternal [On what grounds do you make this statement?]; space has no independent existence [On what grounds do you make this statement?]; space is not the first principle; there must be something logically prior to space, something that creates space.)”

___________

You must have realistic grounds for what you say about the nature of the universe and what it contains, such as emergence.

When you say, “space is not the first principle” you are right because the actual nature of space and the rest of the universe do not need a “first principle.” That is one of those unrealistic metaphysical ideas that are not of any utility in the analysis of the intrinsic nature of the universe.

That “there must be something logically prior to space, something that creates space,” is another one of those metaphysical notions. The problem is that you are thinking with logic that is not based on observation.

Infinite, eternal, immaterial, three-dimensional spatial-place does not need to be created. Space is there as the foundational component of the universe within which all else exists.

Vincent

Hello everyone,

Mark Iosim said:

“Based on this understanding of emergence I believe it is purely epistemological concepts that designate our inability to understand some phenomena. Now lets me to answer your question:

“‘HOW WOULD AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS OF EMERGENCE ENHANCE THE ABILITY AND ACCURACY OF PREDICTION IN YOUR FIELD OF RESEARCH?’

“My answer: IT DOESN"T”

___________

When George Henry Lewes coined the term emergence, he was thinking about how “effects” as he called them came into existence. He thought he noticed two classes of effects, those that were resultants and those that were emergents. Resultants were those effects where it was possible to trace the steps of the process by which the effect came into existence. Emergents were those effects where it was not possible to trace the steps of the process. With resultants, we could know the process, but with emergents the process of their origin was a mystery.

Focusing on the cases where the originating process was unknown resulted in all the nonsense that has been said about emergence, such as emergent “. . . phenomenon that cannot be in principle explained by science.”

The problem was that Lewes was distinguishing between various cases of effects coming into existence using a criteria that had nothing to do with the processes of coming into existence themselves. His criteria was whether or not the processes of origin of the effects were known. Knowing is mental, occurring within the mind of a person, and is completely extrinsic to the processes of coming into existence that were being examined. His criteria distinguished between mental states, and did not distinguish between the actual processes themselves.

Lewes was well aware that there was not any intrinsic difference between resultants and emergents. He said, “Thus, although each effect is the resultant of its components, the product of its factors, . . .” For developing an understanding of how things come into existence, that is the important part. As a result, over the years the definition of the term emergence has developed to mean “coming into existence.”

The understanding of the intrinsic nature of emergence in the real-world has advanced. Many of the older notions about emergence are now recognized as not realistic, not valid.

The complexity people you refer to are using the term in the old way, which is not really very useful. With their definition of the term as “purely epistemological concepts that designate our inability to understand some phenomena[,}” then your conclusion would be correct.

The advanced, modern understanding of emergence now focuses realistically on the process of emergence, the steps of the process. Here is a link to a paper that explains this.

Vesterby, Vincent. 2011. The Intrinsic Nature of Emergence—With Illustrations. Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the ISSS, Hull, U.K.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316609942_The_Intrinsic_Nature_of_Emergence--With_Illustrations

And here is a link to a paper that provides more information about emergence as a real process that plays a role in shaping and reshaping the material aspect of the universe.

Vesterby, Vincent. 2017. Emergence Is an Isomorphy.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312488151_Emergence_Is_an_Isomorphy

By focusing on the processes by which things come into existence, the processes that form the basis of their emergence, understanding emergence becomes a tool of prediction.

Vincent

Vincent Vesterby said:

"The understanding of the intrinsic nature of emergence in the real-world has advanced"

Vincent, I am familiar with work of Lewes, C. D. Broad, Morgan and other early British emergentists. I also have 30+ publications on emergence, but wasnt impressed with any of them (except with the book "Emergent Evolution "by David Blitz that gave a briliant historical overview on this subject.)

However if you have any specific example of emergence that in your opinion is irrreducable to underlaying laws I would be happy to disscuss it.

3 Nov 2018

Hello everyone,

Mark Iosim said: “Vincent, I am familiar with work of Lewes, C. D. Broad, Morgan and other early British emergentists. I also have 30+ publications on emergence, but wasnt impressed with any of them . . . “

________

Like you, I have not been impressed with most of the literature on emergence.

Igor Jerman pointed out previously in this discussion three concepts of emergence. Two of which “. . . could be interpreted as “epistemological”, i.e. that the emergence is designated only on the basis of our inability to disentangle all pertaining causes and conditions.” The other concept of emergence deals with situations “. . . where emergence is understood as an ontological property of the system in question.”

Lewes first coined the term emergent for the epistemological concepts. It is these concepts that are not impressive. But there has been a transition to the ontological concept.

It is this transition from the not very useful epistemological concepts to the useful ontological concept that I am referring to when I say the understanding of emergence has advanced.

It is this understanding that emergence has an intrinsic ontological quality that I am referring to in the question, Can you use knowledge of processes of emergence that occur in real-world situations and systems for purposes of prediction?

___________

Mark Iosim said: “However if you have any specific example of emergence that in your opinion is irrreducable to underlaying laws I would be happy to disscuss it.”

___________

It is my understanding that everything that exists can be understood if the appropriate information is accessible. Therefore I do not think there is any case of emergence that cannot be understood by way of understanding the intrinsic qualities of the components and their interrelations.

The notion that emergence is irreducible is part of the old epistemological view of emergence. It is not a useful notion.

All cases of emergence are the consequences of the intrinsic natures of the components and their interrelations that together result in the emergent product. All cases of emergence can be understood in terms of the components and interrelations.

But one must be careful of the notion of reducing. The emergent product exists as a combination of the components and their interrelations. The specific emergent product exists only as that combination. The specific emergent product does not exist at any lower level or exist as a quality of any of its individual components.

It is best to understand emergence as the creative process that it is. As Lewes said, “. . . each effect is the resultant of its components, the product of its factors, . . .”

The notion of trying to reduce the emergent product to something prior or something lower is not useful for understanding emergence, and can be discarded.

Vincent

Vincent said: “But one must be careful of the notion of reducing. The emergent product exists as a combination of the components and their interrelations. The specific emergent product exists only as that combination.”

While referring to reductionism, I don’t think about it in caricature interpretation as “the whole is nothing else, but the sum of is part”. Instead I use old fashion definition of reductive analytical method according to which: “The nature of complex things is always reducible to the nature of the sum of underlying constituents and their causes, where the sum is any mathematical or logical procedure that evaluates a resultant of multiple causes.” This definition already includes component interaction as resultant of multiple causes and therefore I don’t know what else I can learn from emergence.

Vincent said: “The specific emergent product does not exist at any lower level or exist as a quality of any of its individual components.”

This statement is often illustrated using example about catalytic ability of enzymes. It states that “enzyme’s catalytic ability is emergent phenomenon because this property cannot be found in the enzyme’s components.”

However, this statmnt doesn’t contradict with reductionism, that doesn’t require that parts have the same properties as whole. Instead reductive analysis is about describing the properties of the whole in terms of properties of its parts and their interactions. Using this reductive approach catalytic properties of enzyme are fairly successfully explained in reductive terms. I don’t know what else I could learn here from emergence.

P.S. All writhing on emergence, from Lewes to contemporary emergentists, are based on examples. I don’t understand why you avoid them and instead limit this discussion to abstract concepts only?

Vincent, do you agree or disagree with Aristotle's view of space (Aristotle -- The Physics)?

19 Nov 2018

Hello everyone,

Martin Klvana said: “Vincent, do you agree or disagree with Aristotle's view of space (Aristotle -- The Physics)?”

___________

Martin, for the benefit of everyone following this discussion, can you give us a concise summary of Aristotle’s view of space?

Vincent

According to Aristotle, with whom i agree: (1) space is finite, (2) space is not self-existent, and (3) vacuity is impossible.

Aristotle: "How can there be any natural movement in the undifferentiated limitless void?"

---

A thought experiment: i am a black hole, a big one, bigger, the biggest. So big that i suck in all matter from the entire Universe. Done. And now the question: With all the matter gone, and all the mass in me, as me, is there any space? (No.) And if there is no space, is there any motion? (No.) And if there is no motion, is there time? (No.)

But what do these Aristotle's concepts have to do with the basic question of these commentaries thread, i.e. with "How would an understanding of the process of emergence enhance the ability and accuracy of prediction in your field of research?" ?

Igor, in order to apply "an understanding of the process of emergence" one first has to understand the process of emergence, i.e., causation.

(Space, motion, and time are not exempt from causation, but Vincent says that space is infinite and eternal, i.e., without a cause.)

Khalid Mohammed Breesem

7 Dec 2018

Hello everyone,

Kenneth M Towe said: “From my point of view, the entire question is artificial and can be discarded if it extends beyond the request for an opinion from one's own field of research.”

___________

The question: How would an understanding of the process of emergence enhance the ability and accuracy of prediction in your field of research?

The question specifies “in your field of research.” The question, as stated, does not ask for anything “beyond the request for an opinion from one's own field of research.”

However, my field of research is transdisciplinarity, which deals with the integration of the accumulated knowledge of the various disciplines. I develop methodology that makes that integration possible.

Understanding the intrinsic nature of emergence, and using that knowledge as a tool for achieving further understanding is one of those methods.

Understanding isomorphies and the roles they play in the different situations in which they occur, and using that knowledge as a tool for achieving further understand is another one of those tools.

The process of emergence creates the hierarchic organization of the material component of the universe from elementary particles such as protons to galactic clusters. The various disciplines are roughly organized according to that hierarchic organization of matter in the universe. Thus understanding emergence is transdisciplinary. For example, to truly understand chemistry, one must understand a great deal of physics. To truly understand biology, one must understand a great deal of chemistry.

To understand molecular interactions requires knowledge about the nature of atoms. To understand the microbiology of the cell requires knowledge about the nature of molecules. In both cases the required knowledge transcends the knowledge of individual disciplines of chemistry and microbiology.

Because the process of emergence creates the levels of material reality, knowledge of the process of emergence provides the possibility of making predictions from level to level, from physics to chemistry, from chemistry to microbiology of the cell.

Knowledge of the process of emergence provides one of the conceptual tools that make it possible to make predictions beyond one’s own field of research.

Knowledge of isomorphies does the same thing.

Here is a link to a paper that discusses both isomorphy and emergence.

Vesterby, Vincent. 2017. Emergence Is an Isomorphy.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312488151_Emergence_Is_an_Isomorphy

Vincent

29 Dec 2018

Hello everyone,

Martin Klvana said: “According to Aristotle, with whom i [I] agree: (1) space is finite, (2) space is not self-existent, and (3) vacuity is impossible.

Aristotle: "How can there be any natural movement in the undifferentiated limitless void?"

___________

Aristotle got it wrong. To understand space—what space is and why it has the specific intrinsic qualities that it has—it is necessary to observe space. It is necessary to let space “speak for itself,” to let the observation of space dictate the understanding of space.

1. Observations shows that space exists as the three-dimensional extension of immaterial place.

2. Because space is immaterial, it has no intrinsic capacity to limit itself, and, because of that immateriality, space has no intrinsic capacity to interact with matter. Matter does not have an intrinsic capacity to limit the extension of space.

3. There is nothing whatsoever that indicates space is limited.

4. The immateriality of space has the consequence that there is nothing that exists that can interact with space in any way, with the consequence that nothing else that exists has anything to do with the existence of space. The existence of space is independent of all else that exists. Space is just there, self-existent.

5. Vacuity is empty space. There is nothing in the existence of three-dimensional immaterial place that requires the existence of anything occupying that place. There is nothing intrinsic to the nature of space that indicates that vacuity is impossible.

6. Aristotle said, “How can there be any natural movement in the undifferentiated limitless void?” This is a trick question. Movement is something matter does. Movement is the passage of matter through space. If there is no matter, there can be no movement. So, to specify void, is to have no matter in the situation. Then, of course, there can be no movement.

Martin Klvana said: “A thought experiment: i [I] am a black hole, a big one, bigger, the biggest. So big that i [I] suck in all matter from the entire Universe. Done. And now the question: With all the matter gone, and all the mass in me, as me, is there any space? (No.) And if there is no space, is there any motion? (No.) And if there is no motion, is there time? (No.)”

___________

This is a thought experiment to think about the consequences of all the matter being removed from the universe. There are three critical flaws in this thought experiment.

1. The first critical flaw is in thinking that accumulating all the matter in the universe into a single black whole removes the matter from the universe. Matter occupies space. Black holes are made of matter, the matter they have accumulated—black holes occupy space. When matter is in a black hole, the matter is still there occupying space, just doing so within the space occupied by the black hole.

2. The second critical flaw is to think that removing the matter also removes the space. Matter occupies immaterial spatial-place, but does not interact with space in any way. Removing the matter cannot affect space in any way whatsoever. Accumulating all the matter into the black hole would leave a situation of infinite space with the black hole occupying a large, but still relatively small, region of that infinite space.

3. The third critical flaw is to think that if there is no motion there would be no time. This idea is based on the false notion that the existence of motion is required for the existence of time. The existence of motion is based on the existence of matter—it is matter that moves. But the existence of time is not based on the existence of matter—it is based on the existence of space. The continuing-existence of space is the basis of time in the universe. If all matter were removed from the universe, that would eliminate the existence of motion. It would not, however, eliminate the existence of space, and thus it would not eliminate the existence of time.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299437469_The_Identification_of_the_Intrinsic_Nature_of_Time

Needless to say, i agree with Aristotle and disagree with Vincent, and i disagree with Vincent's critique of my thought experiment.

5 Jan 2019

Hello everyone,

Martin Klvana said: “Needless to say, i [I] agree with Aristotle and disagree with Vincent, and i [I] disagree with Vincent's critique of my thought experiment.”

___________

Martin, for the benefit of everyone following this discussion, can you give us a concise summary of why you agree with Aristotle’s notions about space?

This discussion is about emergence and the utility of understanding the process of emergence for improving prediction. For the understanding of emergence to be useful for prediction that understanding must be realistic—it must be accurate. The concepts in the mind must match their reality-referents—they must accurately represent the aspects and components of real cases of emergence that they refer to.

To achieve an in-depth understanding of emergence it is necessary to have an accurate realistic understanding of space and time. To achieve that it is necessary to look at space, to observe that space is three-dimensional place, and to observe that matter occupies that spatial-place.

Space provides an existential-context for matter, a place where matter can exist. Matter occurs within space—space is a more fundamental component of the universe than matter. Space is independent of matter—it does not need matter in order to be-there, to exist as the extension of three-dimensional immaterial place.

You say you disagree with the critique of your thought experiment. Why? Can you give us a rational factual account of why you disagree with the points contained in that critique?

For example: Black holes are made of matter. Matter occupies space. Black holes occupy space. Black holes compress matter, but they do not destroy it. As a black hole accumulates matter, the black hole grows in size—it occupies more space. The black holes at the centers of galaxies are big, occupying a large area of space.

While black holes expand in space, occupying greater and greater areas of space as they accumulate more and more matter, they do not affect the space in the rest of the universe. They do not draw in space along with the accumulating matter.

When explaining or analyzing the validity of a thought experiment, it is important to remember that a thought experiment is not a real experiment dealing with real objects, real situations—it is a mental exercise, dealing with interrelating concepts. A thought experiment is not real. It is a pretend experiment.

Vincent Vesterby: As a black hole accumulates matter, the black hole grows in size—it occupies more space.

But maybe it is not unimportant that according to the Einstein’s general relativity theory and many empirical confirmations space-time is intensely curved, therefore not only occupied but also changed in its geometry. Actually, any mass changes space-time, black holes, however, are the most conspicuous. They curve space-time so strongly that it becomes akin to a mousetrap even for light.

Vincent, i agree with Aristotle's notions of space, time, motion, limit, infinity, causation, etc. because they are logical and not contradicted by experimental observations.

As for the black hole . . . if you replace "hole" in "black hole" with "point," you will be closer to what it is, for black hole per se has no spatial footprint, just like a point, just like a center of a magnet.

I am very critical about Emergence concept. Also I tried to trace the origin and evolution of the aphorim “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” that is attributed to Aristotle.

Attached are the notes from the draft of my paper that among other things talks about Aristotel's misundersatnding of infinity and harsh critic for Emergence concept. Sorry for gramatical mistakes. This is just a draft

8 Jan 2019

Hello everyone,

Igor Jerman said: “But maybe it is not unimportant that according to the Einstein’s general relativity theory and many empirical confirmations space-time is intensely curved, therefore not only occupied but also changed in its geometry. Actually, any mass changes space-time, black holes, however, are the most conspicuous. They curve space-time so strongly that it becomes akin to a mousetrap even for light.”

___________

Einstein’s general relativity is a theory.

A theory has two basic components, (1) a general summary of what is factually known about the subject of the theory, and (2) a speculative suggestion concerning what is not yet known about the subject of the theory.

A theory is a conceptual research tool. The purpose of the speculative part is to suggest areas for further research. As a conceptual research tool, theory is one of the steps in the scientific procedure. As just one of the steps in the scientific procedure, theory is not the goal of science—demonstrable knowledge is the goal of science.

Because theory contains speculation, it is critically important to not treat theory as fact. In science further research is conducted to test the speculative part of theory. You say that there are many empirical confirmations that space-time is curved.

There is however an irredeemable problem with all of these experiments. The interpretation of the results of these experiments is the problem. It is not actually possible to tell if space itself curves.

The behavior of matter in these experiments can be observed, but the connection of that behavior of matter with any curvature of space cannot be observed. The conclusion that there is curvature of space due to the behavior of the matter is only a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a speculation. A speculation is not a fact. Therefore a hypothesis cannot be treated as a fact.

The empirical tests do not in fact confirm curvature of space because it not possible to observe spatial curvature itself.

Einstein did not understand the intrinsic nature of space, and, like everyone else at the time, he had no knowledge about the intrinsic nature of time, the basis of time in the universe. Space-time is a figment of Einstein’s imagination. It is not real. At best it is a mathematical construct.

Mathematical constructs can be designed to be mathematical models of situations or systems. The problem with mathematical constructs is that they can also be designed to provide the correct computational output without modelling the actual situation or system. The mathematics of space-time falls into this nonmodelling category.

The interpretation of the math that leads to such notions as the curvature of space is unrealistic speculation.

It is not actually possible to determine if black holes curve space—that again is pure speculation.

It is known that gravity exists. It is known that gravity accumulates matter. But no one actually knows what gravity is. It is known what it does, but it is not known what it is.

It is known that the more matter accumulated, the greater is the associated gravitational force—but it is not known why.

Einstein’s theory involving curvature is just one speculative guess about a possible mechanism. A different theory, a different speculation, might propose a mechanism for gravity that does not involve curvature of space.

9 Jan 2019

Hello everyone,

Igor Jerman (2 months ago) said: “But what do these Aristotle's concepts have to do with the basic question of these commentaries thread, i.e. with ‘How would an understanding of the process of emergence enhance the ability and accuracy of prediction in your field of research?’ ?”

___________

Aristotle thought that space was finite, not self-existent, and that vacuity, space empty of matter, was impossible. Because these notions about space are false, they do not have anything to do with the basic question about the utility of understanding emergence for the purpose of prediction.

Nonetheless, understanding the intrinsic nature of space—what space is, and why space has the intrinsic qualities that it has—is important for a full understanding of the nature of emergence.

Equally important is the understanding of the intrinsic nature of time—why time exists (occurs), what time is, and why time has the intrinsic qualities that it has.

The reason is that emergence is something that occurs with matter—the coming into existence of newly existing patterns-of-material-organization due to the occurrence of motion. Matter occupies space. The process of emergence occupies (occurs) in space. The emergent patterns-of-material-organization occupy space.

Equally, the process of emergence takes time to occur. An ongoing process of emergence occurs during ongoing time. The processes of organizing and reorganizing the interrelations of material components are processes of ongoing change, and change takes time, occurs during the change of ongoing time.

Space provides an extensionally three-dimensional place to be, an existential-context, for the three-dimensional nature of material objects and the three-dimensional nature of patterns-of-material-organizations.

Time provides a universal context of ongoing change of continuing-existence, a temporal existential-context, for (1) the ongoing continuing-existence of the material components taking part in a process of emergence, (2) for the continuing-existence of the motions that constitute the basis of the process of emergence, and (3) for the ongoing changes of pattern that are occurring during the process of emergence.

These existential-context roles of space and time are required for the process of emergence to exist—for to not exist in space is to not exist at all, and to not have intrinsic continuing-existence during the continuing-existence that is time is also to not exist.

The utility of these understandings for using emergence as a tool for prediction is that all aspects of a process of emergence must fit the intrinsic qualities of the spatial and temporal existential-contexts within which the process of emergence is occurring. Any speculation, proposition, idea, concept—any notion—about emergence that does not comply with the intrinsic nature of space and time can be judged as irredeemably wrong.

Time does not exist; time is a measure. Space does not exist; for something to exist it must have at least one attribute, but space has none; space is an attribute of the centrifugal component of the magnetic field. The centripetal component of the magnetic field is responsible for the black hole phenomenon. It is the balance between the centrifugal and centripetal components of the magnetic field that gives the illusion of permanently existing space.

Two precedes three, and one precedes two -- in the same way, surface precedes body, line precedes surface, and point precedes line.

Potentiality precedes actuality. Non-existence precedes existence. The first principle can be only defined via negativa. The first principle (the One, the Godhead, or whatever one prefers to call it) is not space.

10 Jan 2019

Hello everyone,

Martin Klvana said: “Time does not exist; time is a measure. Space does not exist; for something to exist it must have at least one attribute, but space has none; space is an attribute of the centrifugal component of the magnetic field. The centripetal component of the magnetic field is responsible for the black hole phenomenon. It is the balance between the centrifugal and centripetal components of the magnetic field that gives the illusion of permanently existing space.

Two precedes three, and one precedes two -- in the same way, surface precedes body, line precedes surface, and point precedes line.

Potentiality precedes actuality. Non-existence precedes existence. The first principle can be only defined via negativa. The first principle (the One, the Godhead, or whatever one prefers to call it) is not space.”

___________

Martin, this discussion is supposed to be about the utility of understanding emergence for the purpose of enhancing prediction in the various disciplines. Your comments constitute a distraction away from the topic of the discussion. Please restrict your comments to points directly dealing with emergence.

Vincent

10 Jan 2019

Hello Mark,

The draft of your paper does not open adequately on my computer. Can you upload it at your ResearchGate page as a preprint?

Vincent

Sorry Vincent, I shouldn't use .docx file. I am not sure how to create preprint, but maybe attached .pdf file would be sufficient.

Mark

14 Jan 2019

Hello everyone,

Mark Iosim said: “I am very critical about Emergence concept. Also I tried to trace the origin and evolution of the aphorim “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” that is attributed to Aristotle.

Attached are the notes from the draft of my paper that among other things talks about Aristotel's misundersatnding of infinity and harsh critic for Emergence concept. Sorry for gramatical mistakes. This is just a draft

In response to Search Gate discussion about Emergence.docx

36.42 KB”

and

In response to Search Gate discussion about Emergence.pdf

___________

Mark’s draft paper presents a clear and informative review of the problems with the original concept of emergence.

What Mark discovered about the concept of emergence led him to reject emergence.

Reviewing essentially the same literature, I also rejected the original concept of emergence. However, Lewes said, “. . . each effect is the resultant of its components, the product of its factors, . . .” Objects, systems, and larger situations come into existence due to the intrinsic qualities of their components and the interrelations of the components and qualities. There has been a modern transition in the definition of emergence to refer to this ontological process of coming into existence.

The literature Mark reviews in his paper deal with the old concept of emergence rather than the modern understanding of the physical process of interacting components, which results in the coming into existence, the emergence, of newly occurring patterns-of-material-organization—objects, systems, and larger situations.

Earlier in this discussion I made some comments concerning this transition to a realistic understanding of emergence:

“When George Henry Lewes coined the term emergence, he was thinking about how “effects” as he called them came into existence. He thought he noticed two classes of effects, those that were resultants and those that were emergents. Resultants were those effects where it was possible to trace the steps of the process by which the effect came into existence. Emergents were those effects where it was not possible to trace the steps of the process. With resultants, we could know the process, but with emergents the process of their origin was a mystery.

“Focusing on the cases where the originating process was unknown resulted in all the nonsense that has been said about emergence, such as emergent “. . . phenomenon that cannot be in principle explained by science.”

“The problem was that Lewes was distinguishing between various cases of effects coming into existence using a criteria that had nothing to do with the processes of coming into existence themselves. His criteria was whether or not the processes of origin of the effects were known. Knowing is mental, occurring within the mind of a person, and is completely extrinsic to the processes of coming into existence that were being examined. His criteria distinguished between mental states, and did not distinguish between the actual processes themselves.

“Lewes was well aware that there was not any intrinsic difference between resultants and emergents. He said, “Thus, although each effect is the resultant of its components, the product of its factors, . . .” For developing an understanding of how things come into existence, that is the important part. As a result, over the years the definition of the term emergence has developed to mean “coming into existence.”

“The understanding of the intrinsic nature of emergence in the real-world has advanced. Many of the older notions about emergence are now recognized as not realistic, not valid.

“The complexity people you refer to are using the term in the old way, which is not really very useful. With their definition of the term as “purely epistemological concepts that designate our inability to understand some phenomena[,]” then your conclusion would be correct.

“The advanced, modern understanding of emergence now focuses realistically on the process of emergence, the steps of the process. Here is a link to a paper that explains this.

“Vesterby, Vincent. 2011. The Intrinsic Nature of Emergence—With Illustrations. Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the ISSS, Hull, U.K.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316609942_The_Intrinsic_Nature_of_Emergence--With_Illustrations

“And here is a link to a paper that provides more information about emergence as a real process that plays a role in shaping and reshaping the material aspect of the universe.

“Vesterby, Vincent. 2017. Emergence Is an Isomorphy.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312488151_Emergence_Is_an_Isomorphy

By focusing on the processes by which things come into existence, the processes that form the basis of their emergence, understanding emergence becomes a tool of prediction.

And also:

“Like [Mark], I have not been impressed with most of the literature on emergence.

“Igor Jerman pointed out previously in this discussion three concepts of emergence. Two of which “. . . could be interpreted as “epistemological”, i.e. that the emergence is designated only on the basis of our inability to disentangle all pertaining causes and conditions.” The other concept of emergence deals with situations “. . . where emergence is understood as an ontological property of the system in question.”

“Lewes first coined the term emergent for the epistemological concepts. It is these concepts that are not impressive. But there has been a transition to the ontological concept.

“It is this transition from the not very useful epistemological concepts to the useful ontological concept that I am referring to when I say the understanding of emergence has advanced.

“It is this understanding that emergence has an intrinsic ontological quality that I am referring to in the question, Can you use knowledge of processes of emergence that occur in real-world situations and systems for purposes of prediction?”

The various older notions about the concept of emergence that Mark debunks in his paper can be abandoned. The focus now needs to be not on the old concept of emergence, but rather on real-world cases of emergence that can be effectively studied by science.

Vincent:

" ...The focus now needs to be not on the old concept of emergence, but rather on real-world cases of emergence that can be effectively studied by science."

Vincent, can you give an example of the 'real-world cases of emergence' you have in mind?