Perplexed 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.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (125)
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.