Searching for GOD...

[ProfessorDavey]

It doesn't though turn your reductionism into emergentism though.

Except my phospholipid example is a pretty well perfect example of emergence and emergent properties.

1. Individual phospholipid molecules do not exhibit the properties of either selective permeability or compartmentalisation.
2. Individual phospholipid molecules, due to fundamental chemistry and energetics, will self assembly into larger structures.
3. Those larger structures exhibit new properties (selective permeability or compartmentalisation) that are not present in the individual components but emerge due to the interaction of those parts in the wider whole structure.

That is a 'text-book' example of emergence and emergent properties.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except my phospholipid example is a pretty well perfect example of emergence and emergent properties.

1. Individual phospholipid molecules do not exhibit the properties of either selective permeability or compartmentalisation.
2. Individual phospholipid molecules, due to fundamental chemistry and energetics, will self assembly into larger structures.
3. Those larger structures exhibit new properties (selective permeability or compartmentalisation) that are not present in the individual components but emerge due to the interaction of those parts in the wider whole structure.

That is a 'text-book' example of emergence and emergent properties.

Irreducibility, yes, indeducibility?

[ProfessorDavey]

Irreducibility, yes, indeducibility?

Nope - emergence and emergent properties. Why divert the discussion.

Do you accept that my example is an excellent example of emergence and emergent properties.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - emergence and emergent properties. Why divert the discussion.

Do you accept that my example is an excellent example of emergence and emergent properties.

According to emergentism if it isn't irreducible or indeducible it isn't an emergent phenomenon and you are just bandying the word "emergent."

That wouldn't be the first instance of atheist word piracy, the term "nothing" coming to mind.

The importance of mentioning irreducibility and indeducibility is that in Reductionism, emergent phenomena are at worse illusory and at best the term emergence is shorthand for a description of what the components are doing.

You have a philosophy department at your university? I would get down there pronto if you are to proceed in any meaningful way on this.

[ProfessorDavey]

According to emergentism ...

Let's stop you right there - I note your canny sleight of keyboard to subtly change the topic of conversation.

We are discussing emergence and emergent properties, not emergentism. In other words:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Come on then - do you accept that my example is an excellent example of emergence and emergent properties. See the link for the benchmark on which to base your view.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let's stop you right there - I note your canny sleight of keyboard to subtly change the topic of conversation.

We are discussing emergence and emergent properties, not emergentism. In other words:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Come on then - do you accept that my example is an excellent example of emergence and emergent properties. See the link for the benchmark on which to base your view.

I had already stopped since you refuse to say whether your examples of emergence are indeducible or not.

I have already talked to you about the failings reductionism has when distinguishing actual property from the illusion of an actual property or that property being a shorthand.

If you think I want to be fobbed off by reductionism as emergentism manque, think again my friend.

[ProfessorDavey]

I had already stopped since you refuse to say whether your examples of emergence are indeducible or not.

Irrelevant to discussion of emergence and emergent properties in principle.

The point is simply whether the properties of the system as a whole (in my example a phospholipid bilayer) are not present in the individual components of that self assembled system (in this case individual phospholipid molecules). The properties of selective permeability and compartmentalisation are emergent as they exist in the self assembled system but not in the individual components.

So stop banding around terms which aren't relevant - just answer the question. Do agree that these are emergent properties.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Irrelevant to discussion of emergence and emergent properties in principle.

The point is simply whether the properties of the system as a whole (in my example a phospholipid bilayer) are not present in the individual components of that self assembled system (in this case individual phospholipid molecules). The properties of selective permeability and compartmentalisation are emergent as they exist in the self assembled system but not in the individual components.

So stop banding around terms which aren't relevant - just answer the question. Do agree that these are emergent properties.

How can it be irrelevant if you are proposing that a phenomenon is a) illusory or b)just the collective name for a lot of little phenomena going on at the same time?
Emergentism avoids that by declaring the emergent phenomenon to be one that is irreducible and indeducible.

Think of self organisation. What is the self that is organising?

[ProfessorDavey]

How can it be irrelevant if you are proposing that a phenomenon is a) illusory or b)just the collective name for a lot of little phenomena going on at the same time?

But I'm not making either of those claims - why would I.

What I am claiming is that a phospholipid bilayer meets the criteria for emergent properties in terms of selective permeability and compartmentalisation as the more complex structure possesses those properties due to interactions between the component elements (individual phospholipid molecules) although the individual phospholipid molecules do not possess those properties.

This has nothing to do with illusory phenomenon, nor a collective name for lots of little phenomena, neither of which have anything to do with the fundamental principles of emergent properties.

[ProfessorDavey]

Think of self organisation. What is the self that is organising?

Self organisation or self assembly refers to phenomena where individual components will form spontaneously into more complex structures without the requirement for any input of energy on the basis that the self assembled structure represents the lowest energy configuration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly

The 'self' simply refers to the notion that the components will become organised by themselves, spontaneously, without external input.

All explained by simple thermodynamics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Self organisation or self assembly refers to phenomena where individual components will form spontaneously into more complex structures without the requirement for any input of energy on the basis that the self assembled structure represents the lowest energy configuration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly

The 'self' simply refers to the notion that the components will become organised by themselves, spontaneously, without external input.

All explained by simple thermodynamics.

So are you saying the self is the emerged entity or the components? Secondly the spontaneity or otherwise isn't relevant is it...cue Daveyballs.

[ProfessorDavey]

So are you saying the self is the emerged entity or the components?

As far as I understand 'self' in this context will refer to the individual components which spontaneously assemble into a larger structure.

Secondly the spontaneity or otherwise isn't relevant is it...cue Daveyballs.

Nope it is essential for the concept of self assembly - the whole point is that the process occurs spontaneously and doesn't require something (or someone) else to do the assembling. Nor does it require the input of energy as the self assembled form represents the lowest energy state.

Now self assembly is clearly a feature of the spontaneous formation of lipid bilayer from individual phospholipid molecules - with the former exhibiting emergent properties not possessed by the latter. However in principle there is no requirement for self assembly for the development of emergent properties. Emergent properties can also arise when the higher order structure requires the input of energy to be formed from individual components.

However using a self assembled example is valuable as it demonstrates that emergent properties can arise bottom up without external input from individual components that do not possess those properties.

It doesn't always have to be the case - collagen molecules and the property of resisting tensile strain are a good example. The individual molecules possess this property which is recapitulated at a greater scale length when those molecules self assemble into microfibrils, fibrils and fibres. Hence resistant to tensile strain is not an emergent property of those higher order structures.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As far as I understand 'self' in this context will refer to the individual components which spontaneously assemble into a larger structure.
Nope it is essential for the concept of self assembly - the whole point is that the process occurs spontaneously and doesn't require something (or someone) else to do the assembling. Nor does it require the input of energy as the self assembled form represents the lowest energy state.

Now self assembly is clearly a feature of the spontaneous formation of lipid bilayer from individual phospholipid molecules - with the former exhibiting emergent properties not possessed by the latter. However in principle there is no requirement for self assembly for the development of emergent properties. Emergent properties can also arise when the higher order structure requires the input of energy to be formed from individual components.

However using a self assembled example is valuable as it demonstrates that emergent properties can arise bottom up without external input from individual components that do not possess those properties.

It doesn't always have to be the case - collagen molecules and the property of resisting tensile strain are a good example. The individual molecules possess this property which is recapitulated at a greater scale length when those molecules self assemble into microfibrils, fibrils and fibres. Hence resistant to tensile strain is not an emergent property of those higher order structures.

OK so according to you the emergent entity is not the self that has been assembled. I think what you think the self is is reductionist.
Spontaneity is assumed isn't it?

[ProfessorDavey]

... indeducible ...

What on earth is that word supposed to mean Vlad - it doesn't even seem to be a word in the English dictionary.

Do you mean not deducible Vlad? And further, do you mean that it hasn't been deduced or that it cannot be deduced which are entirely different things.

In which case you seem to have disappeared down a non-sensical rabbit hole of either hostage to fortune to special pleading towards supernatural woo.

So to conclude that something cannot be deduced from the properties of individual components you would need to presume that we know everything about the properties of those individual components - which is, of course, nonsense and deeply arrogant as there is always more to know. How can you be sure that once the properties of the individual components are known better that we would not be able to deduce the emergent properties from that enhanced knowledge?

To claim that an emergent property is somehow unknowable from the hypothetically complete knowledge of the individual components and their properties seems presumptively to require an appeal to the supernatural which of course takes us way, way beyond the principle or emergent properties and into the classic circular arguments so favoured by your good self.

[ProfessorDavey]

OK so according to you the emergent entity is not the self that has been assembled. I think what you think the self is is reductionist.

It isn't the entity that is emergent - it is the properties that the entity possesses that are emergent if they are not present in the individual component parts.

Spontaneity is assumed isn't it?

No it isn't assumed at all - although some higher order entities that possess emergent properties (i.e. those not exhibited by the individual component parts) may form spontaneously as in my lipid bilayer example.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It isn't the entity that is emergent - it is the properties that the entity possesses that are emergent if they are not present in the individual component parts.
No it isn't assumed at all - although some higher order entities that possess emergent properties (i.e. those not exhibited by the individual component parts) may form spontaneously as in my lipid bilayer example.

Structures can be emergent. So is the structure not the thing that is self assembled? Is it not the self in self assembled since individual components are existant and do not need assembly?

Secondly emergent things are different from resultant things.
That much is given in the Wikipedia article.

So aren't all properties and structures as you are describing them resultant rather than emergent?

[ProfessorDavey]

Structures can be emergent. So is the structure not the thing that is self assembled? Is it not the self in self assembled since individual components are existant and do not need assembly?

Secondly emergent things are different from resultant things.
That much is given in the Wikipedia article.

So aren't all properties and structures as you are describing them resultant rather than emergent?

We are talking about emergence and emergent properties defined as per the article:

"... emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors that emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole"

My example fits with this definition perfectly - hence these are emergent properties.

I'm not sure the distinction between emergent and resultant is particularly useful as it seems to rest on sterile philosophical distinctions rather than real world applicability. But if pushed I suspect that the ability to resist tensile strain in a collagen microfibril would be a resultant property, but not an emergent one as the individual collagen molecules also have that property albeit on a smaller scale. The emergent properties of a lipid bilayer are not just resultant as they are not merely the additive sum of similar properties at a smaller scale but completely new properties that only arise within the lipid bilayer that aren't present in the individual molecules.

[ProfessorDavey]

So is the structure not the thing that is self assembled?

The overall structure is, of course, formed through self-assembly. However the 'self' in self assembly refers to the individual components.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We are talking about emergence and emergent properties defined as per the article:

"... emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors that emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole"

.

This is also from the article:

"Definitions
This concept of emergence dates from at least the time of Aristotle.[2] The many scientists and philosophers[3] who have written on the concept include John Stuart Mill (Composition of Causes, 1843)[4] and Julian Huxley[5] (1887–1975).

The philosopher G. H. Lewes coined the term "emergent" in 1875, distinguishing it from the merely "resultant":

Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces; their sum, when their directions are the same – their difference, when their directions are contrary. Further, every resultant is clearly traceable in its components, because these are homogeneous and commensurable. It is otherwise with emergents, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference."

This then is the benchmark by which we judge claims of emergence and indeed knowledge of what emergence is.

So it's not enough just to talk about interactions as you seem to be satisfied with but by whether those interactions lead to a resultant or an emergent.

[ProfessorDavey]

This is also from the article:

"Definitions
This concept of emergence dates from at least the time of Aristotle.[2] The many scientists and philosophers[3] who have written on the concept include John Stuart Mill (Composition of Causes, 1843)[4] and Julian Huxley[5] (1887–1975).

The philosopher G. H. Lewes coined the term "emergent" in 1875, distinguishing it from the merely "resultant":

Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces; their sum, when their directions are the same – their difference, when their directions are contrary. Further, every resultant is clearly traceable in its components, because these are homogeneous and commensurable. It is otherwise with emergents, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference."

This then is the benchmark by which we judge claims of emergence and indeed knowledge of what emergence is.

So it's not enough just to talk about interactions as you seem to be satisfied with but by whether those interactions lead to a resultant or an emergent.

Yes - I have read this part of the article.

Firstly I'm not sure this is a broadly accepted difference - resultant vs emergent properties. Just google "resultant property" and you get virtually nothing that alludes to this.

However - let's run with the distinction.

According to this definition a resultant property is one that exists in the component parts and then is combined in some manner when those component parts interact to form the higher level entity. So it is a bit like force vectors - if they are in the same direction you add them to find the "resultant" force - if in opposite directions you subtract etc. So a good example is my collagen, but as you perhaps don't understand the structure of collagen we can look at a rope made of individual strands.

In the rope example the individual strands have strength in tension - combine them and you form a rope, which also has strength in tension which relates to the combination of strength in tension properties of the individual strands. How the strands are oriented will dictate whether the strength is a simple summation of the individual components or there is a more complicated calculation. However the key point is that the tensile strength of the whole, the rope, is related to the tensile strength of each individual strand. In this case tensile strength in the rope is a resultant property of the individual components.

But that isn't the case for my lipid bilayer example. The individual components do not possess the properties of selective permeability nor compartmentalisation - hence the these cannot be resultant properties in the bilayer which forms when those molecules interact because those properties don't exist in the individual components. Hence these properties are emergent, not resultant using the definitions within that section of the article.

So my example remains entirely valid as it is a example of emergent properties not of resultant ones.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes - I have read this part of the article.

Firstly I'm not sure this is a broadly accepted difference - resultant vs emergent properties. Just google "resultant property" and you get virtually nothing that alludes to this.

Just google emergence, emergent properties and emergentism and I think you'll find the opposite

However - let's run with the distinction.

I sense reluctance here

According to this definition a resultant property is one that exists in the component parts and then is combined in some manner when those component parts interact to form the higher level entity. So it is a bit like force vectors - if they are in the same direction you add them to find the "resultant" force - if in opposite directions you subtract etc. So a good example is my collagen, but as you perhaps don't understand the structure of collagen we can look at a rope made of individual strands.

In the rope example the individual strands have strength in tension - combine them and you form a rope, which also has strength in tension which relates to the combination of strength in tension properties of the individual strands. How the strands are oriented will dictate whether the strength is a simple summation of the individual components or there is a more complicated calculation. However the key point is that the tensile strength of the whole, the rope, is related to the tensile strength of each individual strand. In this case tensile strength in the rope is a resultant property of the individual components.

But that isn't the case for my lipid bilayer example. The individual components do not possess the properties of selective permeability nor compartmentalisation - hence the these cannot be resultant properties in the bilayer which forms when those molecules interact because those properties don't exist in the individual components. Hence these properties are emergent, not resultant using the definitions within that section of the article.

So my example remains entirely valid as it is a example of emergent properties not of resultant ones.

One more time!

these properties are emergent, not resultant

[ProfessorDavey]

Just google emergence, emergent properties and emergentism and I think you'll find the opposite

Yes you are correct, to a point - the concept of emergence and emergent properties is exceptionally well established, largely in the various fields of science. Emergentism, by contrast, is a rather obscure branch of philosophy with limited recognition nor acceptance.

So the basic and most broadly accepted definition for emergence and emergent properties is that ""... emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors that emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole". Nothing more, nothing less.

Some people ascribe further qualifications - some are reasonable but actually completely redundant given the basis definition, e.g. resultant property vs emergent property. The basic definition encompasses the distinction already.

Others add in bizarre qualifications that make no sense and are logistically non-sense - e.g. the notion of indeducibility or so-called 'strong' emergence. This is frankly non-sense and as the article implies rejected by sane biologists and physicists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes you are correct, to a point - the concept of emergence and emergent properties is exceptionally well established, largely in the various fields of science. Emergentism, by contrast, is a rather obscure branch of philosophy with limited recognition nor acceptance.

Argumentum ad populum

So the basic and most broadly accepted definition for emergence and emergent properties is that ""... emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors that emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole". Nothing more, nothing less.

But I think then that could include contradictory view points namely Emergence as espoused by Lewes and others and resultance, to coin a word espoused by true reductionists . That renders it as inadequate

Others add in bizarre qualifications that make no sense and are logistically non-sense - e.g. the notion of indeducibility or so-called 'strong' emergence. This is frankly non-sense and as the article implies rejected by sane biologists and physicists.

Not sure that's true. Paul Davies for instance suggests the amount of information generated in part by emergent things may exceed the amount of material available in a universe purely made up of resultants by a huge factor. In other words there is far, far more information in things than material to carry it. Talking of sanity is just you gaslighting, Davey.

There are only three ways to go in the debate, emergentism with the emergent not deducible or calculable from the components, Reductionism where the emergent is a resultant deduced by calculation of the interaction of the particles or some other unspecified means so the term emergent is redundant and finally eliminativism where the emerged property is actually illusiory.

Finally

How far are you on with your calculations to prove that everything is deducible from the components? 

[Dicky Underpants]

Paul Davies for instance suggests the amount of information generated in part by emergent things may exceed the amount of material available in a universe purely made up of resultants by a huge factor. In other words there is far, far more information in things than material to carry it.

"may exceed" - and how the devil would he know that there is far more information generated by emergent things in a universe than material to carry it?  He's in possession of all this information, is he? That would be pretty delusional, and as suggested, not very sane.
I was aware of the terms emergence and emergent properties, but as far as I can see, the term emergentism , as the Prof says, is a fairly obscure philosophical term. It has some historical provenance, apparently with worthies such as Broad and John Stuart Mill among its proto-proponents. All in all though, it looks like having affinities with the process theology of Alfred North Whitehead, which in turn leads to opening the rusty lid on the dried up well of Bergson's vitalism. Vitalism is not very vital - in fact it's bleedin' dead. Evolutionary theory has moved on to more fruitful explanations.
Nonetheless, tell us more about emergentism, Vlad, and how you think it differs so importantly from the terms so lucidly explained by the Prof. I'm all ears.

[Dicky Underpants]

Yes - I have read this part of the article.

Firstly I'm not sure this is a broadly accepted difference - resultant vs emergent properties. Just google "resultant property" and you get virtually nothing that alludes to this.

However - let's run with the distinction.

According to this definition a resultant property is one that exists in the component parts and then is combined in some manner when those component parts interact to form the higher level entity. So it is a bit like force vectors - if they are in the same direction you add them to find the "resultant" force - if in opposite directions you subtract etc. So a good example is my collagen, but as you perhaps don't understand the structure of collagen we can look at a rope made of individual strands.

In the rope example the individual strands have strength in tension - combine them and you form a rope, which also has strength in tension which relates to the combination of strength in tension properties of the individual strands. How the strands are oriented will dictate whether the strength is a simple summation of the individual components or there is a more complicated calculation. However the key point is that the tensile strength of the whole, the rope, is related to the tensile strength of each individual strand. In this case tensile strength in the rope is a resultant property of the individual components.

But that isn't the case for my lipid bilayer example. The individual components do not possess the properties of selective permeability nor compartmentalisation - hence the these cannot be resultant properties in the bilayer which forms when those molecules interact because those properties don't exist in the individual components. Hence these properties are emergent, not resultant using the definitions within that section of the article.

So my example remains entirely valid as it is a example of emergent properties not of resultant ones.

Like that explanation very much.