Why conversational equations and emergence (General)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, March 30, 2014, 21:26 (3680 days ago) @ romansh

Romansh: So it would appear that a pattern is not necessarily emergent but can be. So how does this make my question a non sequitur? If it truly were, you should not be able to answer it.
> -A non-sequiter is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. It does not logically follow that a pattern is emergent. It could be, but not necessarily. It is not a logical necessity that a pattern be emergent. ->Romansh: By implication ... patterns themselves are not emergent, there is some underlying phenomenon that is emergent (at least for you).
> -Again, see above. A fractal is a great example of a pattern that is emergent in and of itself, life is a great example of a phenomenon that is emergent. Nuclear explosions are not emergent because the potential resides in the atom, per se, but the behavior of bees only pollinating flowers that have specific ultra-violet markers is. - 
>Romansh: Here is a quote from Mark Bedau from the very same wiki article ...
> >> Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing.
> 
> And if you don't mind we will have less of this willfully ignoring. Just because my views don't meet your expectations Tony.
> -I only mean that the definition exists, you have quoted it, and yet asked a question that has already been directly answered by the definition that you quoted. Is that not the textbook definition of willfully ignoring something? If I am in error in that assessment, I apologize. Your views don't have to meet my expectations, but using something as a source, ignoring the content that is contained in that source, and then using the ignored content as a challenge to someone else is... well.. 'willfully ignoring' is perhaps the politest way to call it. - 
>Romansh: David dismissed the chaotic double pendulum as emergent, simply because it can be modelled with a little bit of accuracy. On the very same wiki page it gave ripples in the sand as an example of emergence. These I would argue can be modelled reasonably well these days with computational fluid dynamics (CFD).
> 
> Similarly it gave snowflakes as an example of emergence which can also be modelled. So I don't buy emergence as not being something we can model.
> -No, generally speaking we can model the events or systems that cause an emergent pattern, but it then becomes nearly impossible to predict the results of those interactions reliably. Fluid dynamics is a great example of this. Yes, we can model currents and viscosity and such, but do you think that we could ever match 100% the state of the ocean, or even of a bathtub full of water being sloshed around? We understand the parameters, but the way those parameters interact is largely a mystery, and still continues to surprise us, almost to the point where being surprised is no longer surprising.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.