I have a curiosity about the different perspectives on emergence. In biology, we usually assume that there are diverse biological entities, such as cells, tissues, organs, systems, organisms, populations, and communities. We can study each entity from a reductionist perspective to describe how we can understand its properties based on its smaller components. We also study these entities from a holistic perspective because we assume that each entity has emergent properties that cannot be reduced to their smaller parts. Both approaches are necessary because there is dualism in emergence (i.e., we can identidy two different units), but they are not independent (i.e., tissues depend on cells to exist).
What exactly causes emergence? Is it the interaction between the components of the system (in a specific way)? And what are the limits to describe something as a new level of organization that cannot be reduced to its smaller parts? In summary, how can we recognize and classify something as presenting emergent properties in practice? I think these discussions are at the heart of many misinterpretations of scientific discoveries that are usually interpreted from either a reductionist or a holistic view, but not both.
really an important research field, which is
1.
to my best knowledge not covered in any sufficient manner up to now, neither in respective sciences,e.g. biology, sociology, psychology, ... nor in related philosophy of science, nor in general epistemology
2.
nevertheless, some basic ideas for such research imop are
2.1
emergence in each field, e.g. biology, presupposes a self contained ontology of emergent objects and object groups as well as respective emergent relations between them. the point wrt such an emergence ontology is not, that objects or relations are not reducible to a 'more basic' level (e.g., biochemistry for biology, or biology for sociology+psychology+ ... ), but that the special reduction applicable to a single instance of an emergent object (group), or relation between, does not matter so much for the
2.2
explanation/prediction/retrodiction of the behavior of the emergent object(group)s in terms of corresponding emergent relations.
2.3 [added 2023-09-12] imop it's in full accordance with the above - wrt the relevance and boundary of an emergence ontology - when, in a recent paper, the philosopher of biology John Dupré refers to the fact, that on vertebrate level the 'biological species' concept is much more significant than at the microbe level, see his (2022)
Chapter (Some) Species Are Processes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.
summing up points 2.1 and 2.2 we get in first approximation, that the expected relative independence of emergent phenomena from their reduction bases is well reflected by the existence of a comprehensive, pervasive, and to a large extent self contained explanation scheme which allows to cope [ on the emergence level ] for objective description, analysis etc. of structure and behavior of emergent populations.
Emergent properties as they are called by biologist (or "scientists") are in philosophy known as a "partial dilemma" between particulars and universals. The book by D.M. Armstrong "Nominalism and Realism" (1978) is rather famous in this regard. For example, stuff and things, such as my feet, are made of particles, such as electrons. Then, either each electron is a particular and exactly similair but separate entities. Or, there is an universal, such as an electron field, where "spikes" in this field represent electron particles. We however end up with an issue that we need to accept the mathematical construct, the electron field as a universal. Hence, this construct is underlying all reality as in Platonism. It would indeed prevent further regress (emergent properties) to pose such an universal, but is an abstract entity acceptable? There are ofcourse many other apologies.
I recommend(http://www.chronos.msu.ru/old/rzotiny_kniga.html)
А. И. Зотин, А. А. Зотин. Направление, скорость и механизмы прогрессивной эволюции. - М.: Наука, 1999.
Hello dears, I would like to invite you to read my ebook "The fantastic microbiological world" for free on Amazon (https://www.amazon.com.br/dp/B0CF1VKKK8)
Thomas Schlemmermeyer
, Wim Kaijser Friedrich Wilhelm Grafe P.N. AnoshkoThis is a nice discussion. Emergence has at least two properties: dualism and reducionism. We can study two levels of organizations as different unities, such as organisms and populations (dualism). However, populations do not exist without organisms (reductionism). The same can be applied to other things, such as body and mind or cells and tissues. However, I rarely see this integrative approach in papers.
I don't think that ecosystems are biological unities, because they are just another scientific perspective of communities which includes abiotic factors. I think we can expand our view of the world by integrating reducionist and holistic views of biological phenomena, rather than using only one of these approaches.
In the beginning the standard scientific view is of a singularity from which all emerged. First the protium thence hydrogen, helium, carbon, the organic crystal and eventually us, (to cut a long story short). We shouldn't, of course, forget hot, cold, pressure, vibration and some others I've missed; all emerging from the original singularity; a oneness from which came allness.
There is no doubt the universe is remarkable to say the least. To my mind the interesting perspective is not the reductionist view but that which looks to the properties. It is these unique properties that demonstrate emergence best of all.
It is not difficult to see how two rocks can make a mortar and pestle, which is easy to see as nothing more than two shaped rocks but, it is the properties that are different. This is a simple example that can be extrapolated into far more complex things. Take for example transuranics, the stuff which the universe didn't create unless we see ourselves as extensions of the universe.
Kant spoke of the noumenon which Einstein had great trouble with and so ignored it when he arrived at spacetime. I think this idea needs re-examining. For me time is the universal property of emergence. It isn't about the clock going round and round or Nietzsche's eternal return but of change where one and one don't make two unless two is a number greater than its parts.
Like gravity, emergence is a universal property that consciousness looks upon and attempts to simplify for the sake of understanding. When we look back over history it is more evident that novelty arises from what came before it but not merely as the summation of its proprietorial parts.