There is no emergence

[bahman]

BUT, 'I' just asked 'you' what does the word 'function' mean to you, FIRST, in that EXACT SAME reply. So, WHY did 'you' IGNORE 'that part', and just replied 'the part' you did here ONLY?

Also, DO NOT TELL ME that I FAILED, as ALWAYS, and then when I CHALLENGE 'you' to back up and support YOUR CLAIM, then NOT DO 'it'.

'you' are just SHOWING and PROVING how 'you' are FAILING, AGAIN.

A function is a mathematical tool that makes one-to-one mapping between two variables.

Okay. Therefore, there IS 'emergence', and 'strong emergence' AT THAT.

But by definition, the property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts. Do you know what you are talking about? Can you give an example of weak and strong emergence?

[Age]

A function is a mathematical tool that makes one-to-one mapping between two variables.

Okay. Therefore, there IS 'emergence', and 'strong emergence' AT THAT.

But by definition, the property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts.

Okay, if you say so.

Do you know what you are talking about?

Yes.

I have ASKED you for CLARIFICATION OF, and EXAMPLES FOR, the words 'property', 'the whole', 'function', 'properties', and 'the properties of parts'. It is 'you', "bahman", who has FAILED each time to EXPLAIN what 'it' IS that 'you' are "talking about".

Can you give an example of weak and strong emergence?

But I can NOT provide AN EXAMPLE of 'strong emergence', to YOU, BECAUSE 'you' BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that 'strong emergence' is NOT POSSIBLE, does NOT EXIST, and that there can NEVER be AN EXAMPLE of 'it', correct?

Also, I can only PROVIDE EXAMPLES of ACTUAL 'things', to YOU, WHEN you PROVIDE WORKABLE 'definitions' of 'things' that could ACTUALLY EXIST.

So, WHEN, and IF, you EVER PROVIDE ACTUAL workable 'definitions', then we WILL SEE if I can PROVIDE EXAMPLES for those ACTUAL 'things'.

Furthermore, were you even AWARE that YOUR 'definitions' are NOT the AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definitions'?

Or, were you REALLY UNDER some sort of ILLUSION that YOUR OWN 'definitions' ARE the ones USED by EVERY one in these types of discussions?

[bahman]

Okay. Therefore, there IS 'emergence', and 'strong emergence' AT THAT.

But by definition, the property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts.

Okay, if you say so.

Do you know what you are talking about?

Yes.

I have ASKED you for CLARIFICATION OF, and EXAMPLES FOR, the words 'property', 'the whole', 'function', 'properties', and 'the properties of parts'. It is 'you', "bahman", who has FAILED each time to EXPLAIN what 'it' IS that 'you' are "talking about".

Can you give an example of weak and strong emergence?

But I can NOT provide AN EXAMPLE of 'strong emergence', to YOU, BECAUSE 'you' BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that 'strong emergence' is NOT POSSIBLE, does NOT EXIST, and that there can NEVER be AN EXAMPLE of 'it', correct?

Also, I can only PROVIDE EXAMPLES of ACTUAL 'things', to YOU, WHEN you PROVIDE WORKABLE 'definitions' of 'things' that could ACTUALLY EXIST.

So, WHEN, and IF, you EVER PROVIDE ACTUAL workable 'definitions', then we WILL SEE if I can PROVIDE EXAMPLES for those ACTUAL 'things'.

Furthermore, were you even AWARE that YOUR 'definitions' are NOT the AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definitions'?

Or, were you REALLY UNDER some sort of ILLUSION that YOUR OWN 'definitions' ARE the ones USED by EVERY one in these types of discussions?

Please provide an example of weak and strong emergence each.

[Age]

But by definition, the property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts.

Okay, if you say so.

Do you know what you are talking about?

Yes.

I have ASKED you for CLARIFICATION OF, and EXAMPLES FOR, the words 'property', 'the whole', 'function', 'properties', and 'the properties of parts'. It is 'you', "bahman", who has FAILED each time to EXPLAIN what 'it' IS that 'you' are "talking about".

Can you give an example of weak and strong emergence?

But I can NOT provide AN EXAMPLE of 'strong emergence', to YOU, BECAUSE 'you' BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that 'strong emergence' is NOT POSSIBLE, does NOT EXIST, and that there can NEVER be AN EXAMPLE of 'it', correct?

Also, I can only PROVIDE EXAMPLES of ACTUAL 'things', to YOU, WHEN you PROVIDE WORKABLE 'definitions' of 'things' that could ACTUALLY EXIST.

So, WHEN, and IF, you EVER PROVIDE ACTUAL workable 'definitions', then we WILL SEE if I can PROVIDE EXAMPLES for those ACTUAL 'things'.

Furthermore, were you even AWARE that YOUR 'definitions' are NOT the AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definitions'?

Or, were you REALLY UNDER some sort of ILLUSION that YOUR OWN 'definitions' ARE the ones USED by EVERY one in these types of discussions?

Please provide an example of weak and strong emergence each.

HOW could ANY one PROVIDE to you some 'thing', which you BELIEVE does NOT even exist?

To ENVISION this, one just has to IMAGINE HOW ANY one could PROVIDE PROOF, or even an EXAMPLE, to "another", that God does NOT exist, when the "other" is BELIEVING that God DOES exist? And, vice-versa, HOW does one PROVIDE PROOF, or even an EXAMPLE, to "another", that God DOES exist, when the "other" is BELIEVING that God does NOT exist?

Also, you have a 'hide' EXPECTING me to PROVIDE 'you' WITH EXAMPLES when you will NOT do 'this' NOR even PROVIDE definitions for the words you USE here. Which, considering you started this thread, would be an EXPECTED 'thing', that is; if you REALLY did want to back up, support, and/or PROVE 'your' CLAIM here TRUE.

So, WHEN 'you' WORKABLE defines AND provide examples for and of the WORDS you USE, in your OWN made up DEFINITION for the words 'strong emergence', THEN I WILL PROVIDE EXAMPLES of WEAK and STRONG 'emergence'.

So, 'we' AWAIT FOR 'you', "bahman".

[bahman]

Okay, if you say so.



Yes.

I have ASKED you for CLARIFICATION OF, and EXAMPLES FOR, the words 'property', 'the whole', 'function', 'properties', and 'the properties of parts'. It is 'you', "bahman", who has FAILED each time to EXPLAIN what 'it' IS that 'you' are "talking about".



But I can NOT provide AN EXAMPLE of 'strong emergence', to YOU, BECAUSE 'you' BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that 'strong emergence' is NOT POSSIBLE, does NOT EXIST, and that there can NEVER be AN EXAMPLE of 'it', correct?

Also, I can only PROVIDE EXAMPLES of ACTUAL 'things', to YOU, WHEN you PROVIDE WORKABLE 'definitions' of 'things' that could ACTUALLY EXIST.

So, WHEN, and IF, you EVER PROVIDE ACTUAL workable 'definitions', then we WILL SEE if I can PROVIDE EXAMPLES for those ACTUAL 'things'.

Furthermore, were you even AWARE that YOUR 'definitions' are NOT the AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definitions'?

Or, were you REALLY UNDER some sort of ILLUSION that YOUR OWN 'definitions' ARE the ones USED by EVERY one in these types of discussions?

Please provide an example of weak and strong emergence each.

HOW could ANY one PROVIDE to you some 'thing', which you BELIEVE does NOT even exist?

To ENVISION this, one just has to IMAGINE HOW ANY one could PROVIDE PROOF, or even an EXAMPLE, to "another", that God does NOT exist, when the "other" is BELIEVING that God DOES exist? And, vice-versa, HOW does one PROVIDE PROOF, or even an EXAMPLE, to "another", that God DOES exist, when the "other" is BELIEVING that God does NOT exist?

Also, you have a 'hide' EXPECTING me to PROVIDE 'you' WITH EXAMPLES when you will NOT do 'this' NOR even PROVIDE definitions for the words you USE here. Which, considering you started this thread, would be an EXPECTED 'thing', that is; if you REALLY did want to back up, support, and/or PROVE 'your' CLAIM here TRUE.

So, WHEN 'you' WORKABLE defines AND provide examples for and of the WORDS you USE, in your OWN made up DEFINITION for the words 'strong emergence', THEN I WILL PROVIDE EXAMPLES of WEAK and STRONG 'emergence'.

So, 'we' AWAIT FOR 'you', "bahman".

I have already provided the definition for everything. You say that there is strong and weak emergence given the definition. So please give me a damn example of each.

[Flannel Jesus]

Hope you don't mind if I give some examples.

The most concrete example I can think of of something that's pretty much the spitting image of what "weak emergence" - and reductionism - is, is Gliders in Conway's Game of Life.

Conway's Game of Life defines the rules of how future states progress from past states in the source code. Unlike our universe, we actually have the source code, so when it comes to Conway's Game of Life we can unambiguously prove that reductionistic concepts MUST be true in that little man-made cosmos. At a high level, we can notice certain patterns in the game, like Gliders as a simple example, and we know that Gliders are the direct consequence of each pixel behaving by the pixel rules, never breaking the rules - when you arrange certain pieces into particular patterns in the game, and each piece follows only its own local rules, you get new higher-level behaviours and patterns.

In real life, it's actually hard to prove for sure that some higher level concept is weakly emergent, rather than strongly emergent, simply because we don't have access to the source code of the universe. However even without access to the source code, you can point to some things as pretty good examples of what is almsot certainly weak emergence.

I think the best example of weak emergence in our reality is the behaviour of elements on the periodic table. There are certain patterns you see in elemental atoms - they seem to all "want" to end up in arrangements where they have access to certain numbers of electrons. This propensity gives certain elements in certain regions of the periodic table a consistency, a similarity between them, where things in one region are more likely to bind - or not bind - with elements in other certain regions. These chemical patterns of behaviour are taken to be emergent from the underlying laws of behavior governing the parts that make up these atoms - laws of attraction and repulsion of oppositely or similarly charged particles, laws of quantized energy states, and so forth.

As for strong emergence -- I don't personally believe in strong emergence as a real thing in our universe, so I can't give you what I think to be a good real example of that, but we could bring back up Conway's Game of Life to create an illustration.

Conways' Game of Life, if you don't know about it already, is a simulation where a pixel can be on or off, alive or dead, and it's next state of alive or dead, in the next tick of the system, is fully determined by the surrounding pixels and how many of them are alive or dead. So at a low level, it's fully local, and every pixel's state only ever takes into account its immediate neighbors. If we wanted to implement 'Strong Emergence' into Conway's Game of Life, what we would do is program a piece of the logic to be aware of, and detect, larger patterns in the system. When the code detects that there's some larger pattern we're looking for present, we could then override the individual pixels behavior to make sure some higher-level behavior of this larger pattern is maintained. For example let's say we knew that a fully solid circle was unstable, and it would result in the deaths of all the pixels that make it up -- we could program it to detect if that circle is there, and if it is, we could just force all those pixels to stay alive. That's what Strong Emergence would look like in a simulated system - a higher level law overriding lower level laws.

[Age]

Please provide an example of weak and strong emergence each.

HOW could ANY one PROVIDE to you some 'thing', which you BELIEVE does NOT even exist?

To ENVISION this, one just has to IMAGINE HOW ANY one could PROVIDE PROOF, or even an EXAMPLE, to "another", that God does NOT exist, when the "other" is BELIEVING that God DOES exist? And, vice-versa, HOW does one PROVIDE PROOF, or even an EXAMPLE, to "another", that God DOES exist, when the "other" is BELIEVING that God does NOT exist?

Also, you have a 'hide' EXPECTING me to PROVIDE 'you' WITH EXAMPLES when you will NOT do 'this' NOR even PROVIDE definitions for the words you USE here. Which, considering you started this thread, would be an EXPECTED 'thing', that is; if you REALLY did want to back up, support, and/or PROVE 'your' CLAIM here TRUE.

So, WHEN 'you' WORKABLE defines AND provide examples for and of the WORDS you USE, in your OWN made up DEFINITION for the words 'strong emergence', THEN I WILL PROVIDE EXAMPLES of WEAK and STRONG 'emergence'.

So, 'we' AWAIT FOR 'you', "bahman".

I have already provided the definition for everything.

1. NO 'you' HAVE NOT.

2. THE 'definition', which you HAVE PROVIDED, is NOT 'the' definition, AT ALL, but is ONLY 'your' definition, ALONE.

You say that there is strong and weak emergence given the definition.

I SAY there IS 'strong emergence' given 'your' definition, which 'you' have PROVIDED within this thread.

So please give me a damn example of each.

1. 'you', "bahman", have NOT PROVIDED definitions, nor examples, for the words; 'system', 'function', 'property', 'parts', and 'property of parts'.

2. From the definition, which 'you' have PROVIDED here, for 'emergence', which, by the way, 'you' CLAIMED that there was absolutely NO 'emergence' AT ALL, but which has ALREADY BEEN PROVED False, as that thee Truth IS there IS ACTUALLY 'emergence' AFTER ALL, and which you HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED and AGREED WITH, so the 'weak emergence' example HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED here. You KNOW the 'one' that 'you' AGREED WITH.

3. Meanwhile, an example of 'strong emergence' IS the Universe, Itself.

[bahman]

HOW could ANY one PROVIDE to you some 'thing', which you BELIEVE does NOT even exist?

To ENVISION this, one just has to IMAGINE HOW ANY one could PROVIDE PROOF, or even an EXAMPLE, to "another", that God does NOT exist, when the "other" is BELIEVING that God DOES exist? And, vice-versa, HOW does one PROVIDE PROOF, or even an EXAMPLE, to "another", that God DOES exist, when the "other" is BELIEVING that God does NOT exist?

Also, you have a 'hide' EXPECTING me to PROVIDE 'you' WITH EXAMPLES when you will NOT do 'this' NOR even PROVIDE definitions for the words you USE here. Which, considering you started this thread, would be an EXPECTED 'thing', that is; if you REALLY did want to back up, support, and/or PROVE 'your' CLAIM here TRUE.

So, WHEN 'you' WORKABLE defines AND provide examples for and of the WORDS you USE, in your OWN made up DEFINITION for the words 'strong emergence', THEN I WILL PROVIDE EXAMPLES of WEAK and STRONG 'emergence'.

So, 'we' AWAIT FOR 'you', "bahman".

I have already provided the definition for everything.

1. NO 'you' HAVE NOT.

2. THE 'definition', which you HAVE PROVIDED, is NOT 'the' definition, AT ALL, but is ONLY 'your' definition, ALONE.

You say that there is strong and weak emergence given the definition.

I SAY there IS 'strong emergence' given 'your' definition, which 'you' have PROVIDED within this thread.

So please give me a damn example of each.

1. 'you', "bahman", have NOT PROVIDED definitions, nor examples, for the words; 'system', 'function', 'property', 'parts', and 'property of parts'.

2. From the definition, which 'you' have PROVIDED here, for 'emergence', which, by the way, 'you' CLAIMED that there was absolutely NO 'emergence' AT ALL, but which has ALREADY BEEN PROVED False, as that thee Truth IS there IS ACTUALLY 'emergence' AFTER ALL, and which you HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED and AGREED WITH, so the 'weak emergence' example HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED here. You KNOW the 'one' that 'you' AGREED WITH.

3. Meanwhile, an example of 'strong emergence' IS the Universe, Itself.

The example you provide, the car, is weak emergence.

[Age]

I have already provided the definition for everything.

1. NO 'you' HAVE NOT.

2. THE 'definition', which you HAVE PROVIDED, is NOT 'the' definition, AT ALL, but is ONLY 'your' definition, ALONE.

You say that there is strong and weak emergence given the definition.

I SAY there IS 'strong emergence' given 'your' definition, which 'you' have PROVIDED within this thread.

So please give me a damn example of each.

1. 'you', "bahman", have NOT PROVIDED definitions, nor examples, for the words; 'system', 'function', 'property', 'parts', and 'property of parts'.

2. From the definition, which 'you' have PROVIDED here, for 'emergence', which, by the way, 'you' CLAIMED that there was absolutely NO 'emergence' AT ALL, but which has ALREADY BEEN PROVED False, as that thee Truth IS there IS ACTUALLY 'emergence' AFTER ALL, and which you HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED and AGREED WITH, so the 'weak emergence' example HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED here. You KNOW the 'one' that 'you' AGREED WITH.

3. Meanwhile, an example of 'strong emergence' IS the Universe, Itself.

The example you provide, the car, is weak emergence.

Yes we ALREADY KNOW that this is 'YOUR' VIEW.

And, we ALREADY KNOW 'this' because 'you' have ALREADY EXPRESSED and SAID 'this'.

[bahman]

1. NO 'you' HAVE NOT.

2. THE 'definition', which you HAVE PROVIDED, is NOT 'the' definition, AT ALL, but is ONLY 'your' definition, ALONE.


I SAY there IS 'strong emergence' given 'your' definition, which 'you' have PROVIDED within this thread.



1. 'you', "bahman", have NOT PROVIDED definitions, nor examples, for the words; 'system', 'function', 'property', 'parts', and 'property of parts'.

2. From the definition, which 'you' have PROVIDED here, for 'emergence', which, by the way, 'you' CLAIMED that there was absolutely NO 'emergence' AT ALL, but which has ALREADY BEEN PROVED False, as that thee Truth IS there IS ACTUALLY 'emergence' AFTER ALL, and which you HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED and AGREED WITH, so the 'weak emergence' example HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED here. You KNOW the 'one' that 'you' AGREED WITH.

3. Meanwhile, an example of 'strong emergence' IS the Universe, Itself.

The example you provide, the car, is weak emergence.

Yes we ALREADY KNOW that this is 'YOUR' VIEW.

And, we ALREADY KNOW 'this' because 'you' have ALREADY EXPRESSED and SAID 'this'.

It is the fact. The properties of a car are functions of properties of parts.

[Age]

The example you provide, the car, is weak emergence.

Yes we ALREADY KNOW that this is 'YOUR' VIEW.

And, we ALREADY KNOW 'this' because 'you' have ALREADY EXPRESSED and SAID 'this'.

It is the fact. The properties of a car are functions of properties of parts.

'you' ARE STILL UNAWARE that what 'you' write here, WITHOUT EXPLANATION, makes NO sense AT ALL, correct?

The 'properties' of 'systems/'things' are NOT necessarily 'functions' of 'properties of parts' AT ALL.

For example, the 'floor carpet' [property] of a 'car' [system] IS NOT a 'function' [look up to a "standard"] of the 'air in the tire' [properties of parts]. FULL STOP.

So, ACCORDING to YOUR VERY OWN and ALONE 'definition' of 'strong emergence' what this MEANS is the 'car' is AN EXAMPLE of 'strong emergence'.

[bahman]

Yes we ALREADY KNOW that this is 'YOUR' VIEW.

And, we ALREADY KNOW 'this' because 'you' have ALREADY EXPRESSED and SAID 'this'.

It is the fact. The properties of a car are functions of properties of parts.

'you' ARE STILL UNAWARE that what 'you' write here, WITHOUT EXPLANATION, makes NO sense AT ALL, correct?

The 'properties' of 'systems/'things' are NOT necessarily 'functions' of 'properties of parts' AT ALL.

For example, the 'floor carpet' [property] of a 'car' [system] IS NOT a 'function' [look up to a "standard"] of the 'air in the tire' [properties of parts]. FULL STOP.

So, ACCORDING to YOUR VERY OWN and ALONE 'definition' of 'strong emergence' what this MEANS is the 'car' is AN EXAMPLE of 'strong emergence'.

You don't know what you are talking about.

[Age]

It is the fact. The properties of a car are functions of properties of parts.

'you' ARE STILL UNAWARE that what 'you' write here, WITHOUT EXPLANATION, makes NO sense AT ALL, correct?

The 'properties' of 'systems/'things' are NOT necessarily 'functions' of 'properties of parts' AT ALL.

For example, the 'floor carpet' [property] of a 'car' [system] IS NOT a 'function' [look up to a "standard"] of the 'air in the tire' [properties of parts]. FULL STOP.

So, ACCORDING to YOUR VERY OWN and ALONE 'definition' of 'strong emergence' what this MEANS is the 'car' is AN EXAMPLE of 'strong emergence'.

You don't know what you are talking about.

So, can 'I' also just SAY, 'you' do NOT know what 'you' are talking about, and just leave it at that, as though it is absolutely and irrefutably true also?

[bahman]

'you' ARE STILL UNAWARE that what 'you' write here, WITHOUT EXPLANATION, makes NO sense AT ALL, correct?

The 'properties' of 'systems/'things' are NOT necessarily 'functions' of 'properties of parts' AT ALL.

For example, the 'floor carpet' [property] of a 'car' [system] IS NOT a 'function' [look up to a "standard"] of the 'air in the tire' [properties of parts]. FULL STOP.

So, ACCORDING to YOUR VERY OWN and ALONE 'definition' of 'strong emergence' what this MEANS is the 'car' is AN EXAMPLE of 'strong emergence'.

You don't know what you are talking about.

So, can 'I' also just SAY, 'you' do NOT know what 'you' are talking about, and just leave it at that, as though it is absolutely and irrefutably true also?

I know what I am talking about. The system is the car and parts are the engine, floor carpet, air in the tire, etc.

[Age]

You don't know what you are talking about.

So, can 'I' also just SAY, 'you' do NOT know what 'you' are talking about, and just leave it at that, as though it is absolutely and irrefutably true also?

I know what I am talking about.

Maybe, but you have YET to PROVE this true.

The system is the car and parts are the engine, floor carpet, air in the tire, etc.

Therefore, there IS emergence, and 'strong emergence' at that.