lessdazed 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.

Article Navigation

Comments (125)
Tags: futility_of_chaos mysterious_answers fake_answers

Comments (125)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: DanielLC 04 August 2011 06:11:39PM 1 point [-]

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.

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.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit