Empty perspective. That a bicycle is a bicycle only when the parts are assembled in the proper way is an example of emergent phenomena. Or why you just can’t

Empty perspective. That a bicycle is a bicycle only when the parts are assembled in the proper way is an example of emergent phenomena. Or why you just can’t make a human by blending our ingredients together (they must be painstakingly arranged in just the right order for their effect.) Whole is greater than the sum of parts. > there’s no evidence for anything novel. I feel sad for this perspective. There is so much novelty. Every advancement in thought and form brings prior unfathomed yet useful variations (novelty.) maybe the quest to kill mystery makes the author overlook its subtlety? The whole point of invention, to enable through novel form and application that which without would be IMPOSSIBLE! This nihilistic banter of electrons and atoms doesn’t reduce why strawberries or bananas taste good, or the magic of folding paper into a perfect airplane, or any application of intellectual technology upon otherwise ordinary materials. These don’t defy physics, they are the miracle of complexity bringing us infinite variation of novelty. Is this all supposed to explain away “god” and “magic”? I think this article is philosophically attempting to fill a hole in someone’s anticipation of what emergent phenomena is doing for us. “We” “we” “we”, an amusing thing to see an authors unconvincing inclusivity. These topics meander without coherent purpose. Universe? Emergent behavior is found in every tiny thing. The Universe isn’t a bunch of stuff, it is the potential of all being manifest into state/form in the moment of now. This in itself is ephemeral and indefinitely restructures itself in ways no systemic computation will ever reveal in a useful way. Explainability and comprehension are not the same thing. It is the difference between reason and reasons. One is just a story you tell yourself.