Emergence

[Resha Caner]

Emergence is the idea that the behavior of a complex system cannot be predicted from the behavior of its parts.

Thoughts? Is this a real phenomena or just an artifact of our inability (at the present time) to accurately predict the behavior of the parts?

 

[bhsmte]

Emergence is the idea that the behavior of a complex system cannot be predicted from the behavior of its parts.

Thoughts? Is this a real phenomena or just an artifact of our inability (at the present time) to accurately predict the behavior of the parts?

Do you have examples of what you are referring to?

 

[Chesterton]

Every time I encounter the word emergence it's a way of saying nothing. Like when materialists say free will could be an "emergent phenomenon". It's saying "something emerged", but tells you nothing else.

 

[Mudinyeri]

The OP seemed a little simplistic and, potentially, "off" so I did a bit of research. Here's what I found at the New England Complex Systems Institute's website:

In describing collective behaviors, emergence refers to how collective properties arise from the properties of parts, how behavior at a larger scale arises from the detailed structure, behavior and relationships at a finer scale. For example, cells that make up a muscle display the emergent property of working together to produce the muscle's overall structure and movement.

So, it would seem that the NECSI's definition is exactly the opposite of the OP's. The structure, behavior and relationships of the parts are a positive or predictive indicator of a system's behavior.

 

[quatona]

Emergence is the idea that the behavior of a complex system cannot be predicted from the behavior of its parts.

No, it isn´t.

 

[Chesterton]

I think it's like if you built a normal car from all the usual parts, and then the car had the ability to time travel. You can't explain the time travel from the parts and systems as assembled, so you describe the time travel as emergent. It's a mystery.

 

[Mudinyeri]

I think it's like if you built a normal car from all the usual parts, and then the car had the ability to time travel. You can't explain the time travel from the parts and systems as assembled, so you describe the time travel as emergent. It's a mystery.

I think that might be described as "transcendent." The sum of the parts transcends the capability of the whole.

 

[Loudmouth]

Emergence is the idea that the behavior of a complex system cannot be predicted from the behavior of its parts.

Thoughts? Is this a real phenomena or just an artifact of our inability (at the present time) to accurately predict the behavior of the parts?

I was under the impression that Emergence was more about the system being more than it's parts and/or rules. I think Emergence still allows for the prediction of the complex system from the simple rules given enough time and computing power.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think it's like if you built a normal car from all the usual parts, and then the car had the ability to time travel. You can't explain the time travel from the parts and systems as assembled, so you describe the time travel as emergent. It's a mystery.

That's not my understanding. To use another example, the property of wetness is an emergent property of water molecules. A single water molecule does not feel wet. However, a whole group of water molecules does produce the experience of wetness. Even more, we can explain and predict how a large group of water molecules will behave from the simple characteristics of a single water molecule.

 

[Chesterton]

That's not my understanding. To use another example, the property of wetness is an emergent property of water molecules. A single water molecule does not feel wet. However, a whole group of water molecules does produce the experience of wetness. Even more, we can explain and predict how a large group of water molecules will behave from the simple characteristics of a single water molecule.

But does it explain how you get wetness from a whole group and not the single molecule, or does it just state what we already know - that it happens?

 

[Resha Caner]

Fair enough. I may have jumped too far ahead. It would be better to say emergence is when properties arise in a system when those properties are not exhibited by the parts. One of the debates, then, is whether these emergent properties can be predicted by reducing the system to its parts. I wondered where people stood on that debate.

Here is a paper that debates the topic: http://people.reed.edu/~mab/papers/weak.emergence.pdf

Bedau focuses only on "weak" emergence and concludes that predicting emergent properties is possible only in principle and that we don't have the ability to actually do it in practice. It is also interesting that he avoids a discussion of "strong" emergence because, as he says, "Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic."

I assume NESCI is familiar with the debate, and maybe the quote states their position on the matter. I'd have to read the statement more in its context to be sure. I've not seen a good case for predicting emergent properties, but there could easily be something I'm not aware of.

 

[Loudmouth]

Bedau focuses only on "weak" emergence and concludes that predicting emergent properties is possible only in principle and that we don't have the ability to actually do it in practice.

For many examples, I would agree with this explanation. It is just a matter of not having enough computing power and time. If we had mega super computers from the year 90000, we could probably model quite a few emergent properties with very good accuracy. I like to geek out on Formula 1 at times, and I ran across a really cool Youtube video from Sauber outlining their wind tunnel work. Part of their development program is computer modeling where they predict drag and downforce across the car using computer simulations. I would strongly suspect that such modeling of emergent properties, the aerodynamics across a complex car in this case, would have been nearly impossible 30 years ago.

I've not seen a good case for predicting emergent properties, but there could easily be something I'm not aware of.

From what I understand, the case is quite simple. We understand the physical processes and forces involved, and we expect that all interactions will follow those rules. The hard part is calculating all of the possible outcomes.

 

[Mudinyeri]

Fair enough. I may have jumped too far ahead. It would be better to say emergence is when properties arise in a system when those properties are not exhibited by the parts. One of the debates, then, is whether these emergent properties can be predicted by reducing the system to its parts. I wondered where people stood on that debate.

My opinion is that identifying emerging properties requires inductive reasoning, a keen eye (and other senses) and a good bit of experiential background in the domain. To the unfamiliar, this can seem like "magic."

 

[Resha Caner]

My opinion is that identifying emerging properties requires inductive reasoning, a keen eye (and other senses) and a good bit of experiential background in the domain. To the unfamiliar, this can seem like "magic."

Have you studied chaotic systems?

 

[Mudinyeri]

Have you studied chaotic systems?

Only slightly.

 

[Resha Caner]

Only slightly.

Don't worry. That could well characterize my experience as well. I worked on some specific chaotic behavior in a machine for my engineering job ... and that was years ago. But as far as understanding the whole landscape - no, not really.

 

[Chesterton]

<spit> I tell you wut I wuz reading that there pee dee eff and them college boys is sumthin ain't they, that shore is a whole lotta ten dollar words they done wasted on sayin' "I don't know and I don't know why I don't know". I tell you what if them words was really worth ten dollars I could get my truck fixed with 'em that's how much they done wasted boy howdy I'll tell ya that much shore enuff. <spit>

 

[expos4ever]

I suspect emergence is "real" - I am suspicious of the notion that all complex phenomena can be exhaustively explained in terms of lower order "things".

 

[expos4ever]

The OP seemed a little simplistic and, potentially, "off" so I did a bit of research. Here's what I found at the New England Complex Systems Institute's website:



So, it would seem that the NECSI's definition is exactly the opposite of the OP's. The structure, behavior and relationships of the parts are a positive or predictive indicator of a system's behavior.

In defence of the OP, I have often heard the term used in exactly the way the OP characterizes it.

 

[Resha Caner]

<spit> I tell you wut I wuz reading that there pee dee eff and them college boys is sumthin ain't they, that shore is a whole lotta ten dollar words they done wasted on sayin' "I don't know and I don't know why I don't know". I tell you what if them words was really worth ten dollars I could get my truck fixed with 'em that's how much they done wasted boy howdy I'll tell ya that much shore enuff. <spit>

Funny.