4 ms·

I agree. To model any complex system, it only really requires that a person or a group of people understand, and are able to codify their knowledge the system f

I agree. To model any complex system, it only really requires that a person or a group of people understand, and are able to codify their knowledge the system for a given period of time. Just think of your average decently sized code base. There's enough complexity there such that any single human can't understand it at a given time, save for a very high-level explanation. Does this mean that we don't understand the code base? I don't know if that's the right way to think about it.

lr4444lr 9y ago
Except that there is no emergent property of code. It is the sum of its logical parts, no more, no less. Any emergent value requires our conscious design.
- naasking 9y ago
  > Except that there is no emergent property of code. It is the sum of its logical parts, no more, no less Why do you think emergent properties are not the sum of their parts? If I may simplify, there are generally two classes of emergence, metaphysical and epistemic. The former claims that systems are more than the sum of their parts, that some magic happens when some combination of things are brought together. Few people in science or philosophy takes this position seriously. Epistemic emergence is more about what approach to use to learn about a system. Science is typically reductionist, and it's very successful. However, some properties would be difficult to discover this way because they are only observed in complex interactions between multiple entwined subsystems. For a simplistic example, consider a scenario where you know nothing about physics, but are given unlimited time and unlimited tools to separately test the properties of oxygen molecules, and hydrogen molecules. But, you can never test them together, only separately. Given these constraints, it seems virtually impossible to infer the property that H2O is transparent to visual light. But this property is easy to see when studying them together. Epistemic emergence would hold that we maybe couldn't learn everything about hydrogen and oxygen by studying them separately, or at the very least, doing so isn't always the most effective means to learn about them. But ultimately, the properties revealed of H and O belong to them, and aren't metaphysical.
  - lr4444lr 9y ago
    I only made the statement with regard to code. I don't dispute a different situation generally or the specific example of molecular optics.
    - naasking 9y ago
      And I asked for clarification. The rest of my comment describes the various positions on emergent properties. So which is it you intended? The fact that it's code we're talking about isn't relevant.

lr4444lr 9y ago

Except that there is no emergent property of code. It is the sum of its logical parts, no more, no less. Any emergent value requires our conscious design.

naasking 9y ago
> Except that there is no emergent property of code. It is the sum of its logical parts, no more, no less Why do you think emergent properties are not the sum of their parts? If I may simplify, there are generally two classes of emergence, metaphysical and epistemic. The former claims that systems are more than the sum of their parts, that some magic happens when some combination of things are brought together. Few people in science or philosophy takes this position seriously. Epistemic emergence is more about what approach to use to learn about a system. Science is typically reductionist, and it's very successful. However, some properties would be difficult to discover this way because they are only observed in complex interactions between multiple entwined subsystems. For a simplistic example, consider a scenario where you know nothing about physics, but are given unlimited time and unlimited tools to separately test the properties of oxygen molecules, and hydrogen molecules. But, you can never test them together, only separately. Given these constraints, it seems virtually impossible to infer the property that H2O is transparent to visual light. But this property is easy to see when studying them together. Epistemic emergence would hold that we maybe couldn't learn everything about hydrogen and oxygen by studying them separately, or at the very least, doing so isn't always the most effective means to learn about them. But ultimately, the properties revealed of H and O belong to them, and aren't metaphysical.
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  I only made the statement with regard to code. I don't dispute a different situation generally or the specific example of molecular optics.
  - naasking 9y ago
    And I asked for clarification. The rest of my comment describes the various positions on emergent properties. So which is it you intended? The fact that it's code we're talking about isn't relevant.