= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
torekp comments on Rationality Reading Group: Part D: Mysterious Answers - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (8)
The sequence on emergence seems to be a bit controversial. I agree with many comments in that I’ve understood the term emergence as "a result of interacting smaller parts eventually explainable by science" as opposed to "mystical". It's sort of like the wishful thinking in programming, a thinking tool to produce hyptheses. You start with a rough idea and then you fill in the details.
In addition to that, "X is emergent" implies "X doesn't go all the way down". So, wetness is emergent, but energy probably is not. The reason why some people are excited about emergence, I'll wager, is that it lets them resist what I'll call the Cherry Pion fallacy (i.e. "no cherry pie without cherry pions").
Now, that may not be very profound. But it's not completely empty.