= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanielLC comments on The Futility of Emergence - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (125)
Aren't superconductivity and ferromagnetism perfect examples of emergent phenomena?
Yes. So are non-superconductivity and non-ferromagnetism. That's the problem.
Uh. No. Non-superconductivity is not usually considered as an example of emergence. Because the non-superconductive system is composed of smaller subsystems which are themselves non-superconductive. Same goes for non-ferromagnetism. Not "emergent" because nothing new is emerging from the collective that was not already present in the components.
And even if what you wrote were true it would be a problem only if emergence were being used as an explanation. But, outside of the philosophy literature, it almost never is used that way. You are tilting at windmills here.
Non-superconductivity means that moving electrons through it will result in the atoms moving unpredictably. It is a product of how electrons and atoms interact. It is less emergent than how, if they interact a different way, the atoms will not start moving unpredictably.
It's made up of non-superconductive subsystems in that if you take a little piece of it, that will be non-superconductive, but the same applies to a superconductor. You can't just take one atom and say whether or not it's superconductive. A current can't flow through one atom in a relevant sense.
I think that the point is that emergence is in the mind of the observer. If the observer is describing the situation at the particle level, then superconductivity is not there regardless of the size of the collection of particles considered. But, when you describe things at the flowing-electric-fluid level, then superconductivity may emerge.
Aren't the labels arbitrary?
Let's use sharpness.
Let's use bluntness.
That humans say "sharp", "blunt", "conductive", and "non-conductive" in English is due to circumstances of culture, technology, what minerals are abundant on Earth, etc. At least, I don't know the word, if there is one, for non-conductive.
To the extent "sharp" and "blunt" are not opposites, I apologize for the imperfect example.
Conductivity isn't there either unless you describe them at the flowing-electric-fluid level.