Is two more that sum of its part?

[Vonsalza]

AgnosticBoy, if you’re ever near my town, let me know and I’ll buy you a beer.

Thanks for the posts.

 

[STT]

So far I fail to see how this takes away from my argument for emergent phenomena. When discussing cause/effect for phenomena, etc, we’re usually referring to something beyond the atomic level, like neurons, elements (e.g. hydrogen and oxygen), etc. So just as I suspected your point here does nothing to invalidate my argument.

That is because you didn’t consider the next sentences in my post: “The point I am raising is that the behavior of system is a function of internal degrees, namely how parts behave and how they interact. There is no internal degree left so my argument is quite general. I however cannot give you the function which describe the behavior of the system since it is very complicated even in the case of water.”

I already explained how the degrees of freedom can be multiplied when you consider that different levels of an organism or system contributes to a phenomena. For example, neurons, neural networks, and perhaps even factors from the environment may all interact and contribute to consciousness.

Think of bare particles and interaction to realize that you cannot add any internal degree to the system.

In terms of my example about water, you say that you can not explain the relation between the individual parts (hydrogen and oxygen) and how these parts give rise to water’s ability to extinguish fire.

I said that I cannot give you the function because it is very complex. This doesn’t mean that we cannot solve the equation of motion for water and obtain the wave function of the system.

If all you have is your math formula with no empirical evidence to back it up for my examples, then all that you’re giving us here is PHILOSOPHY and not science.

My math is consistent with empirical science. Just check Car–Parrinello method in here to see how one in principle is able to calculate the behavior of a complex system in term of its constitutes.

I thought that philosophers, like Immanuel Kant, showed the folly in relying on pure reason alone. And of course, I not only disagree with your pure reason based argument because of Kant’s points, but also because it conflicts with EMPIRICAL evidence!

There is no empirical evidence against my math.

All of the following posts in this thread show the limitations of your mathematical reasoning: post #17, 33, 35, 39, 40, 44, 49. And another forum member, Vico, added another wise insight which is simply that there is an alternative conclusion to your reasoning, that is, anything that doesn’t follow the process you described in post #1 would be “emergent phenomena”. That’s the whole point of emergence, and it is why many scientists and philosophers from all fields (including atheists) bring up the term.

I also argue in favor of my belief too: “The point I am raising is that the behavior of system is a function of internal degrees, namely how parts behave and how they interact. There is no internal degree left so my argument is quite general. I however cannot give you the function which describe the behavior of the system since it is very complicated even in the case of water.”

 

[AgnosticBoy]

AgnosticBoy, if you’re ever near my town, let me know and I’ll buy you a beer.

Thanks for the posts.

Thanks. I can take you up on the beer offer just as long we can agree that good fun emerges from beer/wings/sports!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

That is because you didn’t consider the next sentences in my post: “The point I am raising is that the behavior of system is a function of internal degrees, namely how parts behave and how they interact. There is no internal degree left so my argument is quite general. I however cannot give you the function which describe the behavior of the system since it is very complicated even in the case of water.”

Saying that the issue is “very complicated” is not an explanation of how water has the properties it does while its parts don’t. So your point is unproven. Here’s two takeaway points based on our entire discussion here:

1. Your mathematical formula as described in post #1 is inadequate when we add real-world values to it. For instance, if we let A= hydrogen; B= oxygen; and the sum = water, this does not explain the qualitative difference between the whole (water) and its (parts) as I brought up in my example.
2. We already have the empirical facts.

• Hydrogen can not extinguish a fire, but instead it can start fires since it is flammable.
• Oxygen can not extinguish a fire, but instead it feeds fires.
• Water can extinguish a fire.

Factoring in these two points, logic dictates that certain properties of water are different (conflicting, even) than the parts that make it up. Therefore, trying to understand the behavior of water by breaking it down to its parts would not yield any insight of its behavior because the whole and parts have DIFFERENT properties (behave differently, interact differently, etc).

Think of bare particles and interaction to realize that you cannot add any internal degree to the system.

Well I don’t think about this issue on an atomic level because an arrangement of atoms can lead to many different things, from the inorganic to the organic, and of course those two are vastly different. This is why I mentioned that you have to consider matters of cause/effect at a higher or more specific level of organization/interaction, otherwise your point does nothing to refute my point.

I said that I cannot give you the function because it is very complex. This doesn’t mean that we cannot solve the equation of motion for water and obtain the wave function of the system.

Yes, the issue can be complex, but that doesn’t prove that your view will eventually be shown to be correct any more than my explanation. If anything you seem to be quite dogmatic in your view since your view is on the extreme end (no emergence at all) and you accept it unquestionably, even when it conflicts with the empirical evidence. In contrast, my view is moderate in that I don’t claim that everything is a product of emergence, so therefore there is room for a moderate form of your view, and I have empirical facts to back it up.

In fact, I’m real surprised that you have not yet said that fire extinguishing ability of water is an inherent property of oxygen and hydrogen, just as you did with consciousness when you gave up on trying to figure it out from its parts.

My math is consistent with empirical science. Just check Car–Parrinello method in here to see how one in principle is able to calculate the behavior of a complex system in term of its constitutes.

The Car-Parrinello method is a computer simulation method, and it’s only one of several I might add, for modeling the behavior of atoms and molecules - molecular dynamics. Interestingly, emergent behavior pop up even in molecular dynamic models which is talked about here(refer to Two mechanisms of ion selectivity section) and here. The second article talks about several different methods that’s used to model molecular dynamics. You can read the abstract here.

There is no empirical evidence against my math.

I don’t disagree with your calculations, but rather I disagree with your conclusions that your math applies to all phenomenon as opposed to only certain types. There is empirical evidence against your conclusion.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I already explained how the degrees of freedom can be multiplied when you consider that different levels of an organism or system contributes to a phenomena. For example, neurons, neural networks, and perhaps even factors from the environment may all interact and contribute to consciousness. In terms of my example about water, you say that you can not explain the relation between the individual parts (hydrogen and oxygen) and how these parts give rise to water’s ability to extinguish fire. If all you have is your math formula with no empirical evidence to back it up for my examples, then all that you’re giving us here is PHILOSOPHY and not science. I thought that philosophers, like Immanuel Kant, showed the folly in relying on pure reason alone. And of course, I not only disagree with your pure reason based argument because of Kant’s points, but also because it conflicts with EMPIRICAL evidence!

I have to disagree with you here, AgnosticBoy: STT’s post are not philosophy nor pure reason in action at all. At the most, they could be said to contain dogmatic and quite persistent statements, but never “reason”, so much the less “pure”.