Emergence

[@phobostech]

Hands down, one of the top 5 best videos on emergence! The views should be in the millions.

[@JaketheBakedSsnake]

Wow. Conscious perception is an emergent phenomenon, which reflexively mirrors the system it relies on.

[@SystemsInnovationNetwork]

Yep, quite amazing when you think about it really.

[@hadlevick]

Jake The polydynamics of the movement generates pseudo-autonomy as material property, of the autogenous phenomenon; existing.(...) Simultaneous as my unidimensional variability... unidimensional variability = live-beings

[@mrpedrobraga]

Our ability as emergent systems to look at interesting facts about ourselves and get mesmerized is mesmerising. And you can grow this more and more.

[@NormenHansen]

Yeah, this would mean that what we experience is the universe experiencing itself - literally.

[@johndoh1000]

I wish youtube recommended this to me 7 years ago. This would have been awesome to learn about!

[@cliffordhodge1449]

Is dimensionality or extension an emergent property of the point? Consider: In geometry, they start by telling you the point has no dimension, no extension. But the extension of the point is a line, which has dimensionality. Where did it come from - adding up enough zeroes to get a non-zero? Aside from this being an apparent theoretical problem with Euclidean geometry, I want to know if this would be a candidate for emergent-property-hood.

[@Spacexioms]

Interested idea; what about the real analysis? Wouldn’t this be considered emergent in nature . Let’s say collection of objects building up on each other with discovered properties?

[@Kwauhn.]

Layman here, so my understanding may be flawed, but... I'd like to think that a line is emergent from the notion of recursion a la Von Neumann ordinals. The idea is that the natural numbers can be constructed from the set of all finite recursions of a "meaningless" function, S (for successor). Without defining the numbers mathematically, they take form by simply being another iteration on top of the last. This construction has the property of direction, in the sense that any number must be before the next and after the last. A point is kind of weird if not taken in the context of something else, because without some kind of space to exist in, a point doesn't really have any properties other than just being a thing. In this way, I feel like a point is synonymous with any finite recursion of S. It has no meaning on its own, but when the collection as a whole is considered, it has the property of being in a "place." So in a roundabout kind of way, the set of all finite recursions of S is a line. Maybe my approach is foolish and far from rigorous, but it makes sense to me since the continuum created is a number line after all. And honestly, on second thought, maybe n-spaces like points, lines, etc. aren't emergent since it's possible to reduce them to their constituent parts. Thinking about all this makes me realize why there's so much debate in the overlap between maths and philosophy. I'd love to hear someone else's take on this!

[@eddieretelj6409]

Great introduction to emergence presented in a clear and concise way.

[@MiamiUFO]

Incompleteness is no accident, it is ubiquitous. Strong emergency is a manifestation of this fact. Reductionism and its inseparable companion dogmatism are obviously very narrow. Great video, thanks for sharing.

[@Spacexioms]

Thanks for this, just got a bit of hope

[@zagyex]

This is the P ≠ NP Problem, no? 13:43 You can verify (results caused by parts) but you cannot predict what parts result in (solve) due to complexity.

[@view1st]

What we need is a Darwin, Einstein or Newton to revolutionise our understanding of this, somone who will publish a seminal work that push us into a new scientific paradigm.

[@dzarren]

John Roberts I whole heartedly agree with what you say. At this point we have no real idea how emergence can take place, our current understanding of natural law does not even seem to allow it, but it is a brute empirical fact that emergence has (apparent) causal power. Science and philosophy (but especially science) are too young to properly address these questions on emergence, the way we use observation to probe the universe is seemingly fundamentally ill equipped to tackle these deep questions about the nature of reality.

[@dsennett]

Are the keys actually equal area though?

[@rodrigoa7x]

Thanks for the videos!!! Very useful for popularization and changing the paradigm!

[@wordprocessbrian4497]

would a pattern that arises from three things in contrast count as emergence? (3/3+1/3) : (3/4+1/4) cycle three times . (12/3) : (12/4) = 4:3 = (3/3+1/3) : 1 . I find it easier to view the model as shapes as the fraction pieces.

[@sohailarshad426]

Is Black swan event an example of Strong Emergence ..?

[@ryanbeitz1]

This is great. But there's a Realist assumption at work in the distinction between epistemological and ontological emergence. The distinction assumes that there is a "real" (so-called "ontological") world "outside" the mind that our epistemological model would fail to account for (or would be unable to account for). This implies that there are our epistemic representations on the one hand, and the "real" ontological world on the other. Hence, my claim to an implicit Realist assumption. Several schools of philosophy (Kant, Phenomenology, Idealism, Anti-Realism, Anti-Foundationalism, etc. etc.) reject this distinction. So might it be better to say to that epistemological emergence only occurs when we apply the wrong epistemological model to a particular system under analysis, such that our model was the incorrect one given the particular goal of that specific analysis? We can suspend the epistemological and ontological distinction then and just say that we employed the wrong representation instead of saying that our model didn't account for what's "really" the case ontologically. Consider the fact that light can be analyzed as either a wave or a particle when we apply different models for different purposes. By contrast, we have something like the analysis of the quality of light from an artistic perspective, which would be an analysis of the emergent properties of the wave/particle synergy--or "light" as a whole (or at a different level). So in my example we have different levels of analysis for different ends but nowhere did we claim that one level was the "real" one. This may or may not be relevant to this series. But I thought I would mention it because a number of philosophers (Hilary Putnam, Michel Serres, David Chalmers, Michel Foucault for example) can be considered "anti-realists" in a sense; and some of them even rely heavily on systems theory in order to justify their metaphysical anti-realism. Nietzsche spells out this kind of anti-realism (albeit without the systems theory angle) when he makes the claim that "There are many kinds of eyes. ... Consequently there are many kinds of 'truths,' and consequently there is no [single] truth" (see Will to Power page 540). Anyway, great videos!

[@soulstargy]

Roy Bhaskar critical realism 'epistemic fallacy'

[@idegteke]

15:08 Note that the scope of the physics MIGHT not be infinite towards the “too tiny to perceive” and the “too far away to perceive” and a boundary might exist beyond which the perfectly valid and proven rules of physics (including the basic axioms and universal constants) are becoming indifferent - the exact same way as Darwin’s perfectly valid and undeniable theory (rule) of evolution is becoming indifferent when we reach back to the very first (most probably) one single cell that started to multiplicate as the very first step of the evolution - from that point backward, evolution is not directly helpful anymore in figuring out what the series of events (chemical evolution AKA abiogenesis) could have exactly been doing to create the very first cell. Also, the act of using the expression “most fundamental parts” abruptly invalidates every further attempts to discuss the possibility that the science of physics (and the scope of the axioms) might have a boundary beyond which the very (space-time-matter-energy) existence of the even smaller “things” are becoming indifferent (or incomplete) and exactly THAT part of the reality provides all the missing links that science is currently trying to find to make that step from a bunch of biological cells that I physically consist of, to this very comment that I have just produced. Physicists are denying the existence of such boundaries as a matter of professional axiom - in spite of the implications of the perfectly undeniable quantum eraser experiment which is just as strong indication of the existence of the above boundary as anything can ever be. How many years must go by without a valid explanation for all the „quantum weirdness”, and without any more significant discovery? When can we finally consider scientifically proven fact that science itself necessarily HAS boundaries. (Don’t read any further until then: all the science that can ever be constructed by the human race is now proven to be no more than a product/result/subset of things that are beyond its own scope.)

[@adeppacademy3869]

Excellent videos as usual. Thanks!

[@MD.shukcan]

X

[@LeafyPeels]

If we want to get technical, the mass of a human being is not just the summation of its smaller parts. The mass of an individual proton and individual electron is more than the mass of a hydrogen atom because of bonding energy and the relationship between energy and matter. So the mass of a human is probably significantly less than the summation of all its subatomic particles when everything is considered.

[@SystemsInnovationNetwork]

I guess by "parts" I was thinking more organs, but it is interesting what you say, I had never thought of that.

[@MaryJane-bo6lj]

mass defect :D m=e/(c^2) conservation of energy

[@kristiandalgard61]

It seems to me that complex systems theory doesn't differentiate itself from physics by being holistic, but rather by having a different object of study. Whereas physics mainly concerns itself with what things are, in essence, and what the actual properties of our universe are (coupling constants etc.), systems theory looks at structure-how things are related or positioned in regard to other things, crudely speaking, and how each thing, as well as the system as a whole, is affected by this. Systems theory appears to be derivable entirely through logic (is purely nomic?), and works fine with only the weaker epistemological form of emergence; physics ultimately relies on measurement. . In reality, the division between physics and complexity theory or systems theory becomes a lot more blurry upon closer inspection. A physical phenomenon such as heat can easily be called emergent, for example-but heat is a result of concrete (though possibly contingent) natural laws and constants that govern the movement of particles in our part of the multiverse. Generally, it may be fair to say that physics strives to move down the ladder of abstraction, to become ever more concrete and precise, while systems theory moves up to ever higher levels of abstraction. However, abstraction is still a form of reduction, in the sense that a larger number of idiosyncratic descriptions are reduced to fewer abstract ones-akin to unification, one of the most central themes in theoretical physics. Besides understanding things by looking for simpler truths that govern them, systems theory and physics share fundamental principles like Occam's razor (in some form) and not least mathematics, which, notably, has reduction as parts of its core.

[@zagyex]

Thank you for the video.

[@mobiledevices307]

I somehow think this whole concept of ontological /strong emergence is unstained and potentially bogus. As an intuition pump - does a circle emerge out of a bunch of dots? If you were to examine each dot individual you will find no such property of being part of a circle; However what is missed in this example is that a circle is a set of dots with their respective coordinates. The circle only emerges out of our discount of the coordinates of the dots as internal to the object. To argue the counterpoint, it may be somewhat fair to say that these coordinates are not intrinsic property of dots because were the dots to be continuously moved, it can still retain identity without fix coordinate. We can trace its movements. This argument make sense, but rests on assumptions continuity of identity. Were arbitrary piece-wise non-bijective function be applied to dots, it would be non-sensible to assign dots identities independent of coordinates. With scientific rigor, two things are only different regards if they can be distinguished from each other. Dots, as fundamentals, can only be *meaningfully* told apart by their coordinates. Thus it would appear that it is reasonable to not treat that location of an object as external. . Emergence seems to refer to quality, which is phenomenal and happens when certain threshold passes each other.

[@Maxander2001]

How is a circle made up of dots? That is not true in mathematics, surely? Might you be confusing computer graphics with everything else that is not computer graphics?

[@SelectHawk]

Is there even such a thing as hard emergence? Polar solvents like water are at best a soft emergence, as the "solvent" property can be explained with the charges of the component atoms and the effects of their relative electromagnetically on the covalent bonds between them. Genuine question. I am a reductionist trying to understand the concept of emergence.

[@kosatochca]

If taken just the example of water solvent properties there is actually not yet a definitive answer even about that. As my grad friend at Chemical Faculty has told me the transition from molecular interaction and behavior to the macro-level chemical substance more or less is an open problem. Simulations in many programs usually disintegrate and became chaotic if number of molecules is in thousands and to really prove the weak emergence we should as well empirically prove that it's possible to simulate vast arrays of molecules. The problem is that equations used in this modelling are often non-convergent and lead to randomness if we try to get roots, so it's not really empirically obvious. There is the whole field of cheminformatics in many ways working around this problem and I'm really far from modern chemistry but the problem is really there

[@SelectHawk]

@@kosatochca Interesting. But is there any evidence that would lead one to assume that there IS a hard emergence happening? Yes, the equations governing the behavior could be highly chaotic, nonlinear and not easily simulated, but that doesn't immediately lead to the conclusion that there is a substantial disconnect that is really there, rather than just a failing of our ability to model. It seems, where we can model something very well, that hard emergence disappears.

[@SelectHawk]

@@kosatochca Chemistry is also not my primary area, but I would have to assume that, if we can make predictions about the chemical properties of solvents from their chemical structure, wouldn't that point to the connection existing, despite our inability to model it on the large scale? I know this idea generally holds for, say, the boiling point of various hydrocarbons. Their chemical structure roughly correlates to their boiling point, and that is especially true when held relative to each other. I know they teach similar things about organic solvents to undergrads. I did take two semesters of orgo, but it may be that I am still working from an oversimplified understanding.

[@kosatochca]

JNF Maybe I myself look into this as biased towards computational mathematics and numerical analysis because I recently have had these courses. But still it’s a huge deal when there are problems not in just raw computational power but in equations that guide them. Often they are ill-posed which means that continuous change in the initial data often correspond to huge numerical instability in the solutions, so we should really deal with them to get better models instead of getting more precise data. Modern science overcomes ill-posed problems through their regularization which in turn means adding new information and certain conditions based on our already given knowledge about some properties of solutions. Well, sometimes these preconceived notions are quite trivial (like roots shouldn’t explode to infinities) but in other instances we need to conduct actual experiences and reactions to empirically measure results and then enforce their statistical distribution on initial numerical models. It’s really almost as we are already using downward causation to solve ill-posed problems. Well, important word here is almost. Numerical analysis is also far from my specialization, I’m just curious🤓. But I’ve heard opinions that maybe all ill-posed problem are in reality well-posed just ill-conditioned, it’s ambiguous. As final remark I understand strong emergence as giving to connections between the elements and arising from them patterns somewhat real status. At least they are as important as elements themselves. So if take the example of solvent properties this quality arises not merely as consequence of distinct molecules’ behavior but through established connections between them and chaotically arising patterns at clusters of hundreds or thousands of molecules. If formed than patterns themselves are often sustainable and in turn effect the molecules.

[@kosatochca]

JNF Well, I’ve just looked into some papers about structure of water and goddamn it we know so little actually. Generally there are a few competing models for it but neither fully explains all properties of water by arising them from molecules. So... it’s complicated. Though, I think the water is really bad example for reductionists instead of many hydrocarbons and even benzene family of substances. The predictive power of the molecular modeling for the latter is quite impressive (cheminformatics is being developed for quite practical reasons as I’ve seen at the industrial expo). But water is still puzzling

[@Spacexioms]

Great introduction

[@SF-fb6lv]

That was really well said!

[@rogermoody2660]

It’s structure within structure within structure!

[@yourenotperfect.9493]

177013

[@AchwaqKhalid]

This is 🤯

[@theblackhole05]

I think a lot of physicist don't believe in God cause they don't really work with emergent almost unexplainable things. But they work with physical practices. But the two lines always cross.

[@blitherbox7467]

I am the result of everything. I forgive you.

[@TJ-kk5zf]

sexism against men at 7:10

[@dalehollis3699]

Funny stuff, nothing would or wouldn't be unless one was or wasn't as if to see it or not , "TO BE OR NOT TO BE" it's like it all comes around in full circle...

[@felixbiggs773]

The example of emergence in Physics is not quite correct: general relativity does not emerge (in our current theories) from microscopic quantum behaviour. A better example would be thermodynamics emerging from the motion of particles.

[@blitherbox7467]

Genius loci. Think about it. That's how that works. Such an amazing and yet still impossible world. Explain yourself. A hookah smoking caterpillar once asked some little girl that question. She didn't know. What's the difference between me and him? Why are you lying?

[@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt]

Um, pretty much everything above the microscopic level is emergent.

[@cryptostevo]

I believe even particles are emergent. For example, 4 hydrogen particles make one helium. That fusion process of four particles emerged.

[@FarhanKhan-fn9nz]

I hate to say this, but Emergence makes no sense if you believe in Materialism. If you cannot reduce an object to the sum of its components, you're positing the existence of something else that you cannot demonstrate or deconstruct, which violates materialism.

[@kosatochca]

Well, emergence bypasses this restrain by the notion of connections between real things that have real value (synergies as a fancy word). You cannot deduce things to a mere sum of its parts because in this way you lose all the meaningful connections between this elements. Only certain arrangements of basic parts can produce the meaningful results, so the arrangement itself has a certain value and can be viewed as somewhat real. So, emergence states that patterns can exist not only as humans perceive and use them (epistemologically) but also as a thing that has independent value and make things work at large.

[@zf1615]

CCHHAAOOSSS

[@Felipe-zl1rj]

Great concept. But let's be honest. There's absolutly NO WAY counsciousness emerged from a shocked gray peace of meat. Yes, It's connected to it somehow, but it was not created by it. And thinking an emerged counsciousness came from evolution is even more stupid, cause meat creating counsciousness is crazy hard (impossible really) and does not make anyone more fit to survive and reproduce. To do that a species only need to act in a more adapted way, it doesnt need to know it's acting like that. It's a hell of a lot evolutionary effort to achieve something evolutionary meaninless and useless.

[@DanielNistrean]

Or counsciousness is an illusion and you're a very complex biological machine.

[@thecasualfront7432]

Felipe lot more likely than just saying 'god did it'

[@20vtmk1]

An appeal to incredulity is not a statement of fact. As an example, the predictions of quantum mechanics were and still are shocking and radically counter-intuitive, but they are robust. So simply stating that "there's no way" is meaningless without gathering evidence and doing the work necessary to support your conclusion.

[@carlosqueso691]

Lol; crazy hard is formally defined as impossible now? ;seems legit, then I invoke the only logical explanation, there is a Omniscient force that did it; am I doing logic right?

[@JimBCameron]

You don't seem to have grasped the idea of Emergence or the reciprocal nature in a process like Evolution. You seem to be thinking in terms of a reductionist model of macro/micro agents in a process.

[@williamsire]

This is just gibberish. It’s laying the foundation for some other bullshit coming later. You heard it from me first.

[@20vtmk1]

Right... It's laying the groundwork for a discussion of bullshit ideas like symmetry and group theory, concepts that are critical in various domains of physics and chemistry.

[@exponentmantissa5598]

Yup. It is just another pseudoscience right up there with things like homeopathy.