Re: MD Art and the MOQ

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 04 2005 - 17:43:34 BST

  • Next message: Arlo J. Bensinger: "Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Society"

    Platt, as Horse points out ..

    If all you want is a "definition" of emergent properties, you don't need me.

    But, I believe what you were really doing was expressing scepticism
    that "things" not already present could actually "emerge" from
    anything.

    In fact the WikiPedia definition (referenced above) already supports
    yopur scpeticism ... "There is no consensus amongst scientists as to
    how much emergence should be relied upon as an explanation .... In
    fact, calling a phenomenon emergent is sometimes used in lieu of any
    better explanation."

    Concensus is for the masses.

    Scientific ?
    Scientific or otherwise, as you can see, it all boils down to "quality
    of explanation".
    Which is all I keep saying. And I guess that's why you asked me.

    (If you want some good examples of "emergence" based explanations, we
    probably need to start with some good chaos & complexity texts, Ian
    Stewart or James Gleick, or my most recent reads Hofstadter ("strange
    loops" in Godel Escher Bach) and David Deutsch (in Fabric of Reality).

    Causal ?
    Causal is an issue - it leads you to the "butterfly effect". In
    massively complex systems it's the pattern of relationships between
    many tiny things that "causes" the end result. In principle one
    butterfly flapping its wings could be the difference in the
    development of a hurricane, but no-one is his right mind (outside a US
    court of law anyway) would accuse the butterfly of "causing" the
    hurricane.

    The point to notice about "patterns of relationships" between many
    tiny things, is that many repeat occurences of things tend to imply
    cycles at work somewhere. Trouble is in the real world outside a
    simple lab experiment, cycles are pseudo-random, having cyclic
    qualities without clear frequencies etc. Because these are not really
    cycles, what arises is "strange loops" and "attractors" around which
    outcomes predictably congregate (hurricanes in the hurricane season),
    despite the fact no-one is ever going to find any direct causal
    correlation between patterns of motion in air molecules and patterns
    of "emergence" of hurricanes - other than statistical experience.

    This stuff is best seen in pictures - it's the elegance that says it's
    the "best" explanation available. But don't take my word for it. Feel
    the quality yourself.

    Ian

    On 7/4/05, Horse <horse@darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
    > Hi Platt
    >
    > Re: Emergetnt Properties/Behaviours:
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
    > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/
    > http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/emergence.html
    > http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notebooks/emergent-properties.html
    > http://alf.nbi.dk/~emmeche/cePubl/99b.toronto.3.1b.html
    >
    >
    > or just google "emergent properties"
    >
    >
    > Horse
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 04 2005 - 18:37:56 BST