6 ms·

Not at all. Here is an analogy: A car is a system which brings you from point A to B. No part of the car can bring you from point A to B. Not the seats, the wh

by gond 1y ago

Not at all. Here is an analogy: A car is a system which brings you from point A to B. No part of the car can bring you from point A to B. Not the seats, the wheels, not the frame, not even the motor. If you put the motor on a table, it won’t move one bit. The car, as a system, however does. The emergent property of a car, seen as a system, is that it brings you from one location to another. A system is the product of the interaction of its parts. It is not the sum of the behaviour of its parts. If a system does not exhibit some form of emergent behaviour, it is not a system, but something else. Maybe an assembly.

unsupp0rted 1y ago
That sounds like semantics. If putting together a bunch of X's in a jar always makes the jar go Y, then is Y an emergent property? Or we need to better understand why a bunch of X's in a jar do that, and then the property isn't emergent anymore, but rather the natural outcome of well-understood X's in a well-understood jar.
- gond 1y ago
  Ah. Not semantics, that is cybernetics and systems theory. As in your example: If a bunch of x in a jar leads to the jar tipping over, it is not emergent. That’s just cause and effect. Problem to start with is that the jar containing x is not even a system in the first place, emergence as a concept is not applicable here. There may be a misunderstanding on your side of the term emergence. Emergence does not equal non-understanding or some spooky-hooky force coming from the unknown. We understand the functions of the elements of a car quite well. The emergent behaviour of a car was intentionally brought about by massive engineering. Reductionism does not lead to an explaining-away of emergence.
cluckindan 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile_Leray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile_Leray
- tinix 1y ago
  haha cool! turned the car into a motorcycle. here's an article with a photo for anyone who's interested: https://archive.is/y96xb https://archive.is/y96xb

by gond 1y ago

unsupp0rted 1y ago

That sounds like semantics. If putting together a bunch of X's in a jar always makes the jar go Y, then is Y an emergent property? Or we need to better understand why a bunch of X's in a jar do that, and then the property isn't emergent anymore, but rather the natural outcome of well-understood X's in a well-understood jar.

gond 1y ago
Ah. Not semantics, that is cybernetics and systems theory. As in your example: If a bunch of x in a jar leads to the jar tipping over, it is not emergent. That’s just cause and effect. Problem to start with is that the jar containing x is not even a system in the first place, emergence as a concept is not applicable here. There may be a misunderstanding on your side of the term emergence. Emergence does not equal non-understanding or some spooky-hooky force coming from the unknown. We understand the functions of the elements of a car quite well. The emergent behaviour of a car was intentionally brought about by massive engineering. Reductionism does not lead to an explaining-away of emergence.

cluckindan 1y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile_Leray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile_Leray

tinix 1y ago
haha cool! turned the car into a motorcycle. here's an article with a photo for anyone who's interested: https://archive.is/y96xb https://archive.is/y96xb