What's Strong Emergence? | ENCORE Episode 1905 | Closer To Truth

[@bruceonlygoodvibes3639]

one thing i like about this channel is it keeps asking questions that we'll never know the answers to.

[@dieresis9]

The fascination of emergence for me is that there is a both-and relationship between the “greater than” and the “sum of its parts” components of the emergent behavior proposition. Yes, the underlying atoms and strings and ultimate physical components are present, but the emergent behaviors are not directly traceable to these necessary preconditions. My either-or mind is stymied, but endlessly intrigued by the discrepancy.

[@simonhibbs887]

I think the mistake is to think that things happen “because of” laws of physics, logic, mathematics, etc. They don’t. These laws are simply descriptions of what we observe, that’s all. Mathematics is just a language we use to describe relationships. It’s descriptive, not causative. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. It is true. In order to be useful a description needs to be accurate and logically consistent, otherwise we’d get ambiguous or contradictory descriptions. Take natural selection for example of a high level “law”, it’s just a description of behaviour and outcomes, that’s all. Humans didn’t evolve because of the laws of natural selection as such, that’s just a useful shorthand way of explaining things, rather natural selection is an accurate high level description of what happens in the world. It’s a true law only to the extent that it’s an accurate description. As it happens it is accurate, and therefore a powerful insight but it’s not a cause. We still evolved before Darwin came up with the idea. Look at it another way, suppose we had different fundamental laws of physics, would the high level behaviour be different? Would the wetness of water be the same if we changed the behaviour of hydrogen and oxygen atoms enough? Yes, of course it would, all these macroscopic behaviours are absolutely a consequence of the low level behaviour. Change the lower levels and the upper levels all change. So these “laws” we have at the upper levels are absolutely and necessarily contingent on the lower levels. On computer programs, they say “the logic” determines what happens at a lower level, but this is a flawed way to look at what is happening. The program logic only operates because it is encoded in the structure of matter, in the computer memory, in the computer hardware. The program is only created as a result of physical processes in the brain of the programmer. At every step of the way everything that happens, that operates, that has an effect is encoded physically. If you change that encoding even slightly, by shifting the atoms of the computer memory or the electrons flowing through the transistors enough to flip a bit from 1 to 0 it doesn’t matter about the logic anymore. It doesn’t matter about the design of the program, it’s enough to change the result, often catastrophically because they physical encoding is deterministic. On money, inflation is a description of what happens when certain things happen. Yes money can be represented in different ways and transactions can occur in many different physical ways, but the description we apply to theses transactions all map to each other. Therefore there is a logical consistency to them. But that’s not determinative, it’s not what makes a transaction happen in a computer, or when we exchange paper money. Those are physical events driven by physical processes. It’s the encoding in matter that makes these things physical, that makes them real activities that actually happen in the world. The logical or linguistic descriptions only exist because they are encoded in matter.

[@afeather123]

I think the fundamental assumption of the entire physicalist project is that there is an ontologically necessary "fundamental" nature of matter, that that matter obeys certain laws, and all macrosystem rules can be derived from the behavior of the fundamental microstates. Like you said, everything we have is just a description. We should not confuse our descriptions with the reality of what is going on, however accurate they may be. I think there is a good chance that the physicalist vision of a bottom up world with a necessary foundation and contingency at all levels above might not only be impossible for us to figure out, but also not the nature of reality. This would radically cripple or outright destroy the very concept of contingency and contingent objects. It would mean that higher level objects and systems are not "illusory" but that actually in order to build a complete predictive theory you would need to understand the laws of each level and how they interact with each other. But what even is a "level"? And how many are there? Most likely there is no such thing, and that there are only endless higher level systems, all of which contribute to the behavior of what we see in nature. This is a confusing picture which confines logic to a useful fiction, and makes ontology an essentially worthless endeavor, but I don't think it is as crazy as it sounds. Still, I agree with the speaker that said we should push our understanding of the fundamentals of physics as far as we can because it is the interesting thing to do. We might not like the idea that we are deterministically governed by the matter we are made of, but that doesn't mean we should abandon the effort to deepen our understanding. However it is, that's how it is, might as well try and find out.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@afeather123 I am a physicalist so yes, I do believe matter has a fundamental nature and a consistent behaviour, which we can describe using physical laws and mathematical relationships. It may be that we never complete a perfect description, but I hop we can. Even if not, thinking about and describing higher level behaviours is still valuable and useful. We have achieved a lot that way and will continue to do so.

[@silvomuller595]

Thank you for sharing your journey, thus we do not need to walk alone.

[@umer.on.youtube]

💯

[@brettlemoine1002]

Great show! I'd been ruminating about something along these lines and didn't even know there was a school of thought about strong emergence.

[@quakers200]

There may also be the possibility that the world of ideas, the laws of physics, and what we call the real world are identical. Were they always identical or will always be identical is another matter. In the universe as far as we know and the laws of physics assumes there is no such thing as anything in compete isolation. That is the universe acts as a whole, no outside action, no inside isolated from that action.

I think it's less mysterious than it seems. Higher level laws cannot be explained from lower level laws, because those lower level laws don't say anything about the state of the system. For example nothing in physics speaks about arranging information to represent lists in computer, so naturally it can tell you nothing about how sorting algorithm would work. Higher level laws emerge from evolution of states within system that "makes sense" at higher levels, those systems evolve by physical rules but don't exist in definition of those physical rules. To infer those emergent laws from low level rules, you would need to explore practically endless "state space", you would need to look at what you can "build" using those physical laws, be it planets with biospheres or transistors of microchips.

[@ferdinandkraft857]

In order to "make sensec at higher levels, you need something _fundamentally_ different; you need consciousness.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Yes. Physics is about the _substrate_ of the being conscious process. Psychology, neurology, biology, etc. *are* more or less directly about the being conscious process.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

When the idea of a building goes from idea in mind to building plans drafted on paper, to an actual building at a geographical location, is that considered to be strong emergence?

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Exactly. A building doesn’t just assemble itself from its environment. Materialists believe the earth, the universe intelligently assembles itself from what happens to exist, wherever it all came from, to bring about something that has laws that works as they should work all in the absence of intelligence which does not emerge until humans emerge. Fantastic. Absolutely.

[@waldwassermann]

Ideally it would be good to always capitalize the letter E in the word Emergence; there is only one E after all. That being said; Crete is beautiful!

[@davidtate166]

This one is hard to under stand for me.🤔😱

[@peweegangloku6428]

Wetness (liquid state) is just one of the three stages in which matter exists. One can have a wet oxygen or wet hydrogen seperately. It all depends on the temperature at which they exist in the liquid form. In fact it is possible for every form of matter to exist in any of the three states. The temperature and conditions are what make the difference. So wetness is not an emergent quality, it is a state of matter.

[@tonyatkinson2210]

“Wet” molten rock ? I dint think there is many people who would consider lava “wet”

[@peweegangloku6428]

@@tonyatkinson2210 Of course wetness is not the same as coldness. In fact, coldness is relative. A boiling hot water wets your clothes and body but is not cold by your standard. So wetness and coldness are two different things. A boiling hot water is considered cold on the surface of the sun. So lava could be considered wet and cold in some extremely high temperature environments.

[@abelincoln8885]

Function, Intelligence & Mind Categories and the origin of any Thermodynamic System .... proves ... God created Man with a body & Son, and the Mind of Man is the Body when alive and becomes the Soul when dead ... with free will, nature & consciousness. Newton was correct. Everything is a Function ... made by a very very powerful Intelligence.

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

Sounds pretty complex.

[@Rohit-oz1or]

Scientists when agreeing for interview with Kuhn: "Yes sure I will answer everything" Once they hear the actual questions: "There are lot of theories..."

[@bryanreed742]

This is a very strange comment. I've never known a competent scientist who thought they could answer any question.

[@tomislavmajeric436]

Great start❤

[@JungleJargon]

Chemical reactions and crystal formations are fixed reactions occurring the same way every time and or in random formations but never having specified logic or instruction. Those require intent which no physical thing by itself has. Intent is something that only a will has and matter doesn’t have a will.

[@patrickwilliams5481]

GeorgeEllis is very good.

[@George-2115]

Two problems: Random events, the randomness of quantum mechanics and quantum entanglement show that we don't and may never even understand the very first level. Strong emergence is an interesting idea. But it is only an idea.

[@bryanreed742]

Was that really the strongest proponent of strong emergence they could find? The interviewer made repeated attempts to get him to clarify his position and he just wouldn't do it! And he made so many confident assertions with no attempt to back them up.

[@MBicknell]

I found these interviews really annoying

[@mintakan003]

I'm wondering whether physicists are still laboring under the metaphor of Laplace's demon. Know (all) the initial conditions, and one can predict the (continuous) trajectory, and the outcome, of the system. That path is deterministic. This is held up as a kind of ideal. But it maybe "wrong", except for the simplest of systems. Even if one takes a mechanistic approach, there are other "primary metaphors". "Computation" has been a recent one (e.g. Stephan Wolfram, Joscha Bach). The possibility space has been greatly expanded, if one thinks in terms of generative rules. The complex outcome is not necessarily predictable, without actually running the computation. Discrete decision points, without differentiable (continuous) functions, make descriptions in terms of simple equations unworkable. Hence, it's called "computation", rather than math. Add to this "randomness" (classical or quantum), along with an internalized information system (e.g. DNA), emergence of autonomous agents, and the trajectory becomes even less predictable. There are distinct breaks, in the path of predictability. "Evolution" can be yet another primary metaphor. Working backwards, this may even be true for the laws of nature (e.g. Lee Smolin). Is it possible, the universe is more open ended (even if its "mechanistic"), than suggested by the original (simplistic) image of Laplace's demon?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

When different physical sciences, such as physics, chemistry and biology; have different physical laws, is that considered to be weak emergence or strong emergence? Any physical law would be considered weak emergence by the fact of being physical or based on physical?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

What type of interaction is physical and non-physical? Could there be strong emergence when non-physical becomes physical, and weak emergence when physical becomes non-physical?

[@tonyatkinson2210]

What non physical things interact with the physical ? And if they do interact , then surely , they are also physical ?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Strong emergence happens in non-physical? Might be strong emergence if ideas become mathematical?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

And when a physical building leads to new ideas in the mind about building, is that considered to weak emergence?

[@waldwassermann]

No... there is only one Emergence.

[@waldwassermann]

@Terre Schill Correct.

[@1SpudderR]

5:27....He said “came into being at the psychological level”!? At that expression point! His logic becomes “dematerialised”!? Anyway...I will keep on emerging from the Cloud, and follow viewing and contemplating this episode. Even though “I am not absolute on what I am I. But I am sure it fits into some mathematical expression for some I...One, but not I!?”

[@joshua3171]

If the hydrogen cased to exsist when combined with oxygen wouldn't that be fusion?

[@jamenta2]

A magical thinking theory by the religious fundamentalists known as "Materialists".

[@dondattaford5593]

Are you telling me something that my consciences needs to know to emerge in a later epoch do you exist for me

[@WildMessages]

Hmmm ... So I'll never be able to figure out what made me watch this video? That gets tricky when your goal is to figure out the actual mechanism? Like what made me think about thinking about this mechanism. I don't think you will be guided to the mechanisms core because it will guide you away. I find so many overlaps with concepts it's impossible to make a decision on what's real and that might be on purpose.

[@peterells1720]

Weak emergence is inadequate to explain consciousness - David Albert's optimism amounts to a promissory note. Strong emergence amounts, in truth, to the denial of physicalism. But few strong emergentists acknowledge this denial.

[@andrewk3210]

19:21 But you cannot know positions AND momenta of particles, because Heisenberg. Case closed, physics can't explain emergence. You can assume there's something beyound physics but that's a whole other story

[@gavo007]

Entropy had the hiccups. All will be fine in the end.

[@kathyorourke9273]

You’re looking more and more like Einstein as you get older.

[@SandipChitale]

Really surprised by the weak arguments by George. We cannot predict the wetness of water from our knowledge of water molecules? Really? True, wetness is a human language construct, but how water molecules will slide and evaporate to cool is equivalent physical behaviour that can definitely be predicted by physics. And about the Fortran program example, George seems to ignore who wrote the Fortran program and in turn if those entities are reducible. He seems to start the analysis or argument in the middle. Think of it like this - /\ where the Fortran program is at the apex of that /\. And George is focusing on the \ part i.e. downward strong emergence. But how did the Fortran program get written and how did the computer that runs it get built i.e. the / part?

[@omnipotent1992]

As above so below

[@TheTroofSayer]

At 8:43 Robert asks George Ellis "We know that H2O is water... could you predict whether it would be wet?" I didn't know until now whether I'd call myself a proponent of strong emergence. Perhaps, framing it in the terms that Robert does, I am. Top-down causation is fundamental. Top-down causation explains culture's impact on personality and sense of self. Culture is the source of our "knowing how to be." Culture informs our gender roles. Cultures self-organise into their functional specialisations just as brains do (e.g., in the organisation of a city). Top-down causation explains the wiring of the neuro-plastic, DNA-entangled brain. It thus follows that human mind-bodies are predisposed to top-down causation coming from culture, and in this way, cultures wire neuroplastic brains (Norman Doidge's famous conjecture in "The Brain That Changes Itself"). Gender roles in culture relate directly to sex roles in biology. What about top-down causation at the cellular-systemic level? Does it follow that cellular autopoiesis (systems theory) can impact on the physics of the very small? I suggest that it must, because there can be no other possible solution to the entropy problem. And, just as *we* human beings derive our "knowing how to be" from culture, and neurons derive their "knowing how to be" from our experiences, does it not follow that matter itself, stripped of its macro physical properties, must also "know how to be?" Let us take a closer look. Physical processes become increasingly irrelevant at the scale of the very small. Cubed root reduction (third power reduction) goes some way to explaining why. The physics of our experienced world (what we call reality) are very different to the physics of the very small. When you reduce the length/height of an entity, its mass (volume) is reduced by the cubed root. Strange behaviors at the atomic and subatomic levels are inevitable when they are released from the sorts of physical constraints that *we* encounter. This is why such remarkable complexity is possible within cells and their DNA, why ants and spiders have long legs, and why the tiniest bugs appear like monsters from alien worlds, when viewed under an electron microscope. Directly relevant to these concerns is Geoffrey West’s (2017)** book Scale, which examines the scaling relationships in living systems, from biology to cities. In interview with Cartlidge (2001), West says, “There’s no question that the interface between physics and biology is going to be a major area of investigation [...] I think that some of the big problems in biology will only be cracked once researchers start to nurture this interface more.” The complex reactions taking place across synapses and within cells cannot be understood in the context of physical and chemical interactions as we experience them. Rather, perhaps a DNA molecule plays a part in "informing" the atoms and molecules comprising it what's "expected" of them, and they take that "knowledge" with them, and deploy their "learning" in all their other engagements and interactions within the organism comprised of the same, identical DNA molecules. Atoms and molecules are not solid forms that stubbornly withstand the forces directed against them, but pussies yielding to whatever their surrounding contexts demand of them - that is, the contexts established at the cellular level. This "knowing how to be" idea removes the woo from panpsychism. It's the idea that the properties of atoms and molecules must be regarded as predispositions, not absolutes, which are open to the contexts that define their roles. The idea of atoms and molecules as being conscious is silly. But the idea that their properties are predispositions waiting to be realized and expressed, depending on context, coming from the top-down, makes more sense. Indeed, I can see no other solution to the entropy problem. Can "weak emergence" account for the entropy problem? I suggest that the tendency to disorder can only be reined in through dynamics coming from the top-down. Some interpretation along the lines of strong emergence is the only way to do it... imho, of course. 10:48 - "But strong emergence would be an astonishing thing. Utterly transformative, a new radical way of how the world works." I agree. It would have huge implications also for cosmology and a living universe in which the CHNOPS of life are strewn throughout a HubbleDeepField immense cosmos. COUNTERS TO THE ARGUMENT FOR WEAK EMERGENCE At 16:08 - "Take a law of economics. Transfers of money have such-and-such economic effects." Here's the flaw in David Albert's argument. *All* transactions, whether money or goods or services, within any economy, are driven by meaning and context. We attribute meaning to money (and goods and services). That meaning comes from culture. Without the top-down directive coming from culture, money is meaningless, just worthless paper. And at 22:16 Barry Loewer says, of the laws of physics making the jump to that level of biology, "they can make the jump." My counter to this is, only if you factor in cube-root reduction and matter being released from its macrophysical constrains, thus paving the way for top-down causation, the "knowing how to be" playing out at the level of matter. So yes, there needs to be consistency across physics and biology, but in recognition of the *absence* of macrophysical constraints that must play out at the most micro levels. REFERENCES Doidge, N. (2008). The Brain That Changes Itself. Penguin. West, G. (2017). Scale: The Universal Laws of Growth, Innovation, Sustainability, and the Pace of Life in Organisms, Cities, Economies, and Companies. Penguin Press.

[@SandipChitale]

Hmmm...sure physics has fundamental laws and thermodynamic laws, but both ARE part of physics. And reductionism does include biological laws as well which can be reduced to biochemistry, chemistry, physics - thermodynamics and eventually fundamental physics.

[@Kim-lc3fv]

I like this show a lot, but I hate the eerie, kind of creepy music at beginning and end of episodes.

[@chilluminati1292]

Here's the real question, why would an all loving all powerful benevolent God put us "all" in the same world together? Such as to make animals having to eat each other to stay alive humans to have to hunt kill and fry the flesh of a once living thing in order to stay alive put good people in with psychopaths parasites catastrophic frightening weather and diseases? Plants that contain poison that can kill just by a single touch, why is there a memory wipe where we cant remember where we were before here how we got here and why we are here If I were the creator and was all powerful and truly all loving I wouldn't make it like this what so ever at all. No, the truth is we are absolutely 100% in a simulation prison hell trapping the conscience soul in the flesh body bound to this hell through incarnation and reincarnation but what's unfair is the fact that there's always a memory wipe that comes with it so how is a person supposed to learn if they can't remember?

[@gordontubbs]

Hot take -- without any mathematical formalization of strong emergence, it's no different from any other metaphysical system like Aristotelean causation.

[@TheNaturalLawInstitute]

Silly. Mathematical predictiabilty (mathematical reducibility) is small, and operational predictiabilty is tiny, even if operational possibiity (computability) is infinite. We know this.

[@JoaoPedro-jr8pf]

last guy was the best tho his absolute nutsack caqui shorts salience was kinda distracting

[@glorifygod1480]

✝️ Repent and believe in the gospel *And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.* Hebrews 9:27‭-‬28 NKJV The gospel of Jesus Christ ✝️ *For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,* I Corinthians 15:3‭-‬4

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

Nope. When an entity is capable of building a model of reality (at any level), that entity, that model and everything involved in them is physical and with a single set of rules. Interpreting reality at different levels of its structure is a convenience and not a real stratification of the universe. Building a model of reality is an activity that results from the physical properties of that universe and despite producing countless confusions, it is a simple process in conceptual terms. It is very convenient to model reality.

[@cdlu2.028]

I enjoy listening...we came from apes but why are today's apes not us? Conclusion- We were apes and were transformed by other organisms thousands of years ago. The other apes continue to be apes.

[@cdlu2.028]

Otherwise would we not be apes still?

[@ferdinandkraft857]

Emergence is B.S.. Strong Emergence is strong B.S..

[@abelincoln8885]

Again. Only an intelligence ... makes, maintains, improves, fine tunes, operates, uses .... abstract or physical Functions. A Function ... is simply a system that processes inputs into outputs and has purpose, from design & properties which are INFORMATION that every function possesses to exist & to function. Everything in the Universe ... is a process, with form, properties & purpose. Everything in the Universe .... is information ... that can only come from the MIND of an intelligence. Freewill, nature & consciousness ... are functions of the MIND ... of an entity Man & certain Animals are physical entities with a physical Mind (brain) and their own type of free will, nature & consciousness. Man is a Natural( Physical ) Intelligence with a Mind ... made by .... an UNNATURAL ( nonphyscial) Intelligence with a Mind. The Mind of an Intelligence is Unnatural or nonphyscial ( ie soul/spirit). The Mind of Man is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul). The Laws of Physics explains everything about existence, but Man has free will & nature to think, believe, say & do as he wants with the Theory of Universal Functions, the Function & Intelligence Categories and origin of anything that is a thermodynamic System.

[@realcygnus]

The short answer is TOTAL BS, regarding consciousness(the other C-word ) anyway. In ALL other cases we CAN indeed, at least in principle, arrive at the things in question from their building-block "constituents". There is no other example of such an extreme & absurd over-appeal to our ignorance anywhere else in science. & all because of a flawed metaphysics, YES a philosophy mind you, which we just assume(examined or otherwise) MUST be correct.

[@asielnorton345]

surprise, surprise physicists think their field is the most important on the planet earth, and can describe everything; philosophers think their field is the most important and describe everything; computer programmers and engineers think the world is a is a simulation.

[@abeautifuldayful]

"Cosmos. Consciousness. Meaning." Closer to Truth used to be subtitled: "Cosmos. Consciousness. God." I see what you did here. Good, I think. God was always overrated. Something real finally emerged strongly, perhaps. Let's see if it lasts.

[@genius1198]

3 minuits 20 seconds....that's all folks... the wall .....

[@franklinayala4879]

Jesus Christ is the reason, confess and do great things.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Etymologically those are anti logical. Anti theos logos opinions

[@mikel4879]

George and Barry are talking stupidities. David at least recognize that he doesn't know much on the subject. You can't create full artificial consciousness that's based only on a strictly theoretical algorithm. The method of doing it correctly is very "intelligent" ( = "somehow tricky"😉 ). How "logical" is the human mind when creates art, music, etc? 😏 Robert, once you start the full Artificial Consciousness you can't control it anymore. You can control AI, but full Artificial Consciousness can't be controlled ever!

[@JoaoPedro-jr8pf]

lib normies

[@beamerUSA]

Plz do NOT interview Sean Carrol. He is NOT in this league. Thanks.

[@SandipChitale]

Make belief.

[@omnipotent1992]

What's make belief?

[@amitbanerjee9218]

What's make belief? Please expand for us

[@teeniequeenie8369]

What are you talking about?!?!

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

And what do you make believe in?