Reductionism vs. Emergence

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why do you think that's true even in principle (which is the claim)?

Why do I think fundamental particles follow the laws of physics without reference to tax arrangements in Leichtenstein?
Er, because of the laws of physics.

Tax arrangements are an emergent from particles which don't have tax arrangements.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Why do I think fundamental particles follow the laws of physics without reference to tax arrangements in Leichtenstein?
Er, because of the laws of physics.

Tax arrangements are an emergent from particles which don't have tax arrangements.

You don’t get it still. In an entirely deterministic model, if you know precisely all the starting conditions and you have unlimited computing power then there’s no inherent reason in principle that you couldn’t predict the future tax arrangements of Liechtenstein.

What “laws of physics” do you think make that not the case?
   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You don’t get it still. In an entirely deterministic model, if you know precisely all the starting conditions and you have unlimited computing power then there’s no inherent reason in principle that you couldn’t predict the future tax arrangements of Liechtenstein.

What “laws of physics” do you think make that not the case?
   

So what is it about particles that necessitates tax arrangements. What property of the quark makes them inevitable?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So what is it about particles that necessitates tax arrangements. What property of the quark makes them inevitable?

Doesn't matter. What is it about oxygen atoms and hydrogen atoms that "necessitates" wetness? Either you accept that the universe is deterministic in character as the evidence suggests, or you don't. If you do then in principle at least the tax arrangements of Liechtenstein were predictable all the way from the big bang; if you don't though then you have a big job to explain your abandonment of the model.

Oh, and "So what is it about particles that necessitates tax arrangements. What property of the quark makes them inevitable?" is just an expression of your incredulity by the way, not an argument.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Doesn't matter. What is it about oxygen atoms and hydrogen atoms that "necessitates" wetness? Either you accept that the universe is deterministic in character as the evidence suggests, or you don't. If you do then in principle at least the tax arrangements of Liechtenstein were predictable all the way from the big bang; if you don't though then you have a big job to explain your abandonment of the model.

Oh, and "So what is it about particles that necessitates tax arrangements. What property of the quark makes them inevitable?" is just an expression of your incredulity by the way, not an argument.   

This post is non sequitur to any recent discussion.
No amount of studying particles will reveal anything about tax arrangements but might give you a fair bit of detail about where those particles are.
An infinitely large computer will tell you everything? Will it really? don't you have to programme it first.
Which brings us to the question of information and the amount of substrate to carry it.
There are too many ifs in your argument and I don't think people are saying what you are alleging anyway.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This post is non sequitur to any recent discussion.

No it isn’t (presumably because you’ve never understood that term).

No amount of studying particles will reveal anything about tax arrangements but might give you a fair bit of detail about where those particles are.

Just repeating the assertion doesn’t justify it. How do you know that, given perfect understanding of the opening conditions and unlimited computing power, it wouldn’t be possible in principle to work out from the big bang onwards what the current tax arrangements of Liechtenstein would be?

An infinitely large computer will tell you everything? Will it really? don't you have to programme it first.

Whoosh!

First, no-one said that it would tell you “everything” – just the outcomes of a deterministic model, no matter how complex.

Second, whether and who would programme the theoretical computer has no relevance to the point here - namely that in principle at least deterministic models are predictable no matter what the author of the article you linked to asserted.
 

Which brings us to the question of information and the amount of substrate to carry it.

No it it doesn’t. It’s an in principle argument, not an in practice one (“You, your dog, and the specifics of your person-dog affection could not be predicted, even in principle, even from perfect knowledge of all your elementary particles”).

There are too many ifs in your argument and I don't think people are saying what you are alleging anyway.

There are no “ifs” - it’s just a simple point in principle, and “people” (ie, the author) are saying exactly that - see quote above. 

[Stranger]

This discussion seems to be confusing reduction with prediction.

It's difficult to say whether perfect prediction is possible, even in principle, because of two reasons.

Firstly, we don't know if the universe is deterministic or not. The problem here is quantum mechanics (well, quantum field theory really). Whether we live in a deterministic universe depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics; and even if you choose the most popular deterministic version, 'Many Worlds', it doesn't actually mean that what we will observe will be deterministic. The macro world appears to be deterministic but it isn't difficult (as in Schrödinger's cat) to magnify single quantum events to the macro scale (I know the cat was a thought experiment but we are perfectly capable of doing something like that in practice - preferably without killing any cats).

Secondly, chaos also throws a bit of a spanner in the works, if the universe contains genuine continua (e.g. space-time). If it does, then perfect knowledge of the position of just one particle would require an infinite amount of data (it's not even just countable infinity, the infinity of a continuum is 'bigger'). Chaos means that you would need perfect knowledge because it can potentially magnify the tiniest of differences in the starting conditions, given enough time. I guess you could argue that an in principle argument could involve a truly infinite amount of starting data but you would need a literally infinite computer, not just one with unlimited storage and processing power, i.e. 'as big and powerful as necessary'.

All of that is different from reduction. As I explained in #21, you can deduce chemical properties of atoms from the basic quantum mechanics of the individual particles. Reduction would mean that, in principle, you can carry on up, explaining biology in terms of chemistry, then on up though behaviour and all the way up to tax arrangements. I don't see any problems with that in principle, and if you claim we can't, then it does call into question the laws of physics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This discussion seems to be confusing reduction with prediction.

It's difficult to say whether perfect prediction is possible, even in principle, because of two reasons.

Firstly, we don't know if the universe is deterministic or not. The problem here is quantum mechanics (well, quantum field theory really). Whether we live in a deterministic universe depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics; and even if you choose the most popular deterministic version, 'Many Worlds', it doesn't actually mean that what we will observe will be deterministic. The macro world appears to be deterministic but it isn't difficult (as in Schrödinger's cat) to magnify single quantum events to the macro scale (I know the cat was a thought experiment but we are perfectly capable of doing something like that in practice - preferably without killing any cats).

Secondly, chaos also throws a bit of a spanner in the works, if the universe contains genuine continua (e.g. space-time). If it does, then perfect knowledge of the position of just one particle would require an infinite amount of data (it's not even just countable infinity, the infinity of a continuum is 'bigger'). Chaos means that you would need perfect knowledge because it can potentially magnify the tiniest of differences in the starting conditions, given enough time. I guess you could argue that an in principle argument could involve a truly infinite amount of starting data but you would need a literally infinite computer, not just one with unlimited storage and processing power, i.e. 'as big and powerful as necessary'.

All of that is different from reduction. As I explained in #21, you can deduce chemical properties of atoms from the basic quantum mechanics of the individual particles. Reduction would mean that, in principle, you can carry on up, explaining biology in terms of chemistry, then on up though behaviour and all the way up to tax arrangements. I don't see any problems with that in principle, and if you claim we can't, then it does call into question the laws of physics.

Very fair assessment, though in terms of moving from chemistry to biology though there are linguistic differences between the two as i was informed by a chemist friend hugely irritated by what he saw as sloppy and innaccurate use of chemical terms and meanings by biologists.

[Stranger]

Very fair assessment, though in terms of moving from chemistry to biology though there are linguistic differences between the two as i was informed by a chemist friend hugely irritated by what he saw as sloppy and innaccurate use of chemical terms and meanings by biologists.

There are linguistic differences at every level, including, of course, physics and chemistry, and probably even more between physics (quantum mechanics) and semiconductor design (that requires quantum mechanics).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are linguistic differences at every level, including, of course, physics and chemistry, and probably even more between physics (quantum mechanics) and semiconductor design (that requires quantum mechanics).

True. I wonder though, how far that reflects the emergence of novel phenomena.

[jeremyp]

They can be working fine within the laws of Physics without describing the tax arrangements of the principality of Leichtenstein in any meaningful way.

But they do. It's just that humans lack the intellect and resources to understand the tax laws of Liechtenstein in terms of the fundamental laws of physics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But they do. It's just that humans lack the intellect and resources to understand the tax laws of Liechtenstein in terms of the fundamental laws of physics.

Sounds like understanding beethoven's Fifth in terms of Yoghurts.

[jeremyp]

Sounds like understanding beethoven's Fifth in terms of Yoghurts.

You're the only person I have ever met who claims that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is composed of yoghurt.

[Sebastian Toe]

You're the only person I have ever met who claims that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is composed of yoghurt.

You have to be cultured to appreciate it?
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're the only person I have ever met who claims that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is composed of yoghurt.

What I am suggesting in a humourous fashion (I thought it was funny and at the end of the day that's what counts) Is perhaps we can't understand Tax arrangements in terms of fundamental particles and not just because we are human.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have to be cultured to appreciate it?
 

Have you been dabbling in the Yakult?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What I am suggesting in a humourous fashion (I thought it was funny and at the end of the day that's what counts) Is perhaps we can't understand Tax arrangements in terms of fundamental particles and not just because we are human.

In principle at least, why not? 

[jeremyp]

What I am suggesting in a humourous fashion (I thought it was funny and at the end of the day that's what counts) Is perhaps we can't understand Tax arrangements in terms of fundamental particles and not just because we are human.

It looked to me like you were suggesting that Beethoven' s music was made of yoghurt. Although I notice that you capitalised the Y. Was Yoghurt a hitherto unknown composer from whom Beethoven stole his harmonies?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

This discussion seems to be confusing reduction with prediction.

It's difficult to say whether perfect prediction is possible, even in principle, because of two reasons.

Firstly, we don't know if the universe is deterministic or not. The problem here is quantum mechanics (well, quantum field theory really). Whether we live in a deterministic universe depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics; and even if you choose the most popular deterministic version, 'Many Worlds', it doesn't actually mean that what we will observe will be deterministic. The macro world appears to be deterministic but it isn't difficult (as in Schrödinger's cat) to magnify single quantum events to the macro scale (I know the cat was a thought experiment but we are perfectly capable of doing something like that in practice - preferably without killing any cats).

Secondly, chaos also throws a bit of a spanner in the works, if the universe contains genuine continua (e.g. space-time). If it does, then perfect knowledge of the position of just one particle would require an infinite amount of data (it's not even just countable infinity, the infinity of a continuum is 'bigger'). Chaos means that you would need perfect knowledge because it can potentially magnify the tiniest of differences in the starting conditions, given enough time. I guess you could argue that an in principle argument could involve a truly infinite amount of starting data but you would need a literally infinite computer, not just one with unlimited storage and processing power, i.e. 'as big and powerful as necessary'.

All of that is different from reduction. As I explained in #21, you can deduce chemical properties of atoms from the basic quantum mechanics of the individual particles. Reduction would mean that, in principle, you can carry on up, explaining biology in terms of chemistry, then on up though behaviour and all the way up to tax arrangements. I don't see any problems with that in principle, and if you claim we can't, then it does call into question the laws of physics.

Good post, but when the argument is expressed as an “if” thought experiment (“if the universe is deterministic, then….” etc) then I can’t see how the author of the article Vlad linked to justifies his comment on reductionism specifically that: “You, your dog, and the specifics of your person-dog affection could not be predicted, even in principle, even from perfect knowledge of all your elementary particles”.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

...from whom Beethoven stole his harmonies?

How dairy? 

(I'll get me jacket.)

[jeremyp]

Stranger,

Good post, but when the argument is expressed as an “if” thought experiment (“if the universe is deterministic, then….” etc) then I can’t see how the author of the article Vlad linked to justifies his comment on reductionism specifically that: “You, your dog, and the specifics of your person-dog affection could not be predicted, even in principle, even from perfect knowledge of all your elementary particles”.   

Also, even in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which is non deterministic, you can certainly predict probabilities of future events in principle, if not exactly which events will happen.

[Stranger]

Good post, but when the argument is expressed as an “if” thought experiment (“if the universe is deterministic, then….” etc) then I can’t see how the author of the article Vlad linked to justifies his comment on reductionism specifically that: “You, your dog, and the specifics of your person-dog affection could not be predicted, even in principle, even from perfect knowledge of all your elementary particles”.   

Okay, missed that as a starting assumption, which only leaves you with the potential chaos problem and whether you're prepared to accept a real infinity in an 'in principle' argument. My impression (I may be wrong) is that it would be somewhat unconventional in that the general definition of computability is whether, in principle, you can solve it with a Turning machine, or equivalently, an (unlimited) register machine - which are unbounded, in the sense that there is no consideration of any practical limitations (they can handle any number of instructions, any amount of data, and no consideration is given to how long it would take) but are constrained to be finite in any particular problem.

But again, this is all about prediction (of the future from some defined starting point), rather than reduction.

[Stranger]

Also, even in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which is non deterministic, you can certainly predict probabilities of future events in principle, if not exactly which events will happen.

Yes, this is certainly true, but you quickly run into problems with prediction the more successive probabilistic events you are considering because the probability of any particular outcome will quickly become tiny, even if the probability of the individual events in the chain are quite high.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Also, even in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which is non deterministic, you can certainly predict probabilities of future events in principle, if not exactly which events will happen.

Predicting future events is what use to be known as clairvoyance or prophesy etc. I am not talking about anything like that. What I am talking about is an explanatory gap between the components that give rise to emergents and the emergents themselves, novel properties if you like. I see no reason why that could not arise within a deterministic context or a non deterministic context.

However here is your opportunity to back up your contention. Name a future event which results in a novel property and give us the probability of it. I'm not talking here about say, the probabilty of a number of water molecules becoming something wet but a new property or as you say a future event that hasn't been seen.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

“You, your dog, and the specifics of your person-dog affection could not be predicted, even in principle, even from perfect knowledge of all your elementary particles”.   

This first appeared in reply 3. Your post.