Perplexed comments on The Futility of Emergence - Less Wrong

36 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 26 August 2007 10:10PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (125)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Perplexed 06 August 2011 05:42:57PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: lessdazed 06 August 2011 08:13:25PM 2 points [-]

Aren't the labels arbitrary?

Let's use sharpness.

Non-sharpness is not usually considered as an example of emergence. Because the non-sharp system is composed of smaller subsystems which are themselves non-sharp. Same goes for non-ferromagnetism. Not "emergent" because nothing new is emerging from the collective that was not already present in the components.

Let's use bluntness.

Non-bluntness is not usually considered as an example of emergence. Because the non-blunt system is composed of smaller subsystems which are themselves non-blunt. Same goes for non-ferromagnetism. Not "emergent" because nothing new is emerging from the collective that was not already present in the components.

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.

Comment author: DanielLC 07 August 2011 12:38:35AM 0 points [-]

Conductivity isn't there either unless you describe them at the flowing-electric-fluid level.