User:Ypan1944/sandbox

There is a lot of ambiguity about the interpretation of the definition of emergence. I therefore consider it desirable to add a "criticism" or "discussion" paragraph.

The current definition of emergence contains the following elements:


 * there is an interaction of constituent (not necessarily identical) entities.
 * this interaction produces new properties which are characteristic for the collective but who's properties are not present in the constituent entities.

The definition is so broad that as a consequence almost everything in this world is emergent, because all objects or phenomena we encounter are composed of different parts who has different properties than the collective constituent. It is virtually impossible to find an elementary object/phenomenon that is not composed. Even at the smallest (Planck) scale emergent phenomena occur (such as space and time).
 * The occurrence of emergence is scale dependent and therefore necessarily subjective, which makes it difficult to find an objective and universally valid definition. For instance entropy in the sense of "disorder", acting on molecular scale is a purely subjective judgment.
 * The "new" aspect of emergence is a vague formulation. It seems insufficient to define "new" as "different from all the previous". But if the phenomenon in question is a direct (deterministic) consequence of its constituent interactions, then the question is whether you can call that phenomenon "new". "Temperature" is just an other name for the mean value of kinetic energy of a lot of molecules and interference of waves is just the result of summing up different waves. You may call this "epistemological emergency".
 * Conway's "Artificial Life" is a tricky one: this is a algorithmic process whose endproduct is difficult to predict, especially whether the result will be dynamic ("live"), but nevertheless a typical deterministic result.
 * Another aspect that is often brought up in the discussion about "newness" is that emergence seems to arise spontaneously, sui generis (it happens "by itself"). That is a misconception: the interaction needs always a necessary exchange of energy and/or matter, while the conditions under which this takes place must be favorable. However, the moment an emergent phenomenon arises can be based on a coincidental concurrence of circumstances, e.g. a spark, a condensation core, the presence of a catalyst that triggers the process, etc.
 * Another mystery that often raised is that an emergent phenomenon seems to ("want to") maintain itself and thus acquires an odium of "purposefulness", which seems to contradict the "purposelessness" in nature. This confusion arises because although the interactions are purposeless, the result of the interactions (i.e. the emergent phenomenon) can be (semi-)permanent, depending on the local and/or accidental circumstances. This apparent purposefulness is therefore more of a retrospective interpretation.
 * Living beings (as emergent appearances) are goal-oriented for survival reasons. This is purely the result of natural selection taking place in the evolutionary process, whereby the best-equipped individuals survive.
 * Artifacts fall just as well under the definition of emergence. Here the purposiveness is evident, but that is only apparent within an appropriate context, in which the intent of the artifact is understood. So subjectively strongly emergent. Bees, ants and termites are not aware of the purposefulness of there behavior, resulting - among other things - in emergent sophisticated artifacts.

At the moment I don't have a conclusive solution for solving this problem. Therefore, I think it makes sense to include these issues in a "Criticism" section. Ypan1944 (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)