There is no emergence

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

STT

Guest
Why? Because there is always a reason why things are this way rather than other way and when this is true then it means that there is a function which relates things together. In another hand there could not be an emergence.
 
Define emergence in the context of your… question (?).

Why does there need to be one?
 
Last edited:
So, from that definition… what’s the problem? You’ve not given a reason there can’t be this “emergence”.

Also, it might help you to understand that God has no parts. I know it’s hard for us to understand, but God is not “The Father + The Son + the Holy Spirit == God.” God is, and all three are the entirety of God. He cannot be greater than the sum of His parts, because there are no parts which comprise the sum, the sum just is.

Either way, you’ve not actually given a reason for your assertion, you’ve simply asserted it, and from what it seems like you’re saying, your assertion is simply wrong.
 
Last edited:
Flip a coin.

Is there a reason why it comes up heads and not tails? Or tails and not heads?

Then why would you think “there is always a reason why things are this way rather than other way.”
 
ProdglArchitect said:
So, from that definition… what’s the problem? You’ve not given a reason there can’t be this “emergence”.

Also, it might help you to understand that God has no parts. I know it’s hard for us to understand, but God is not “The Father + The Son + the Holy Spirit == God.” God is , and all three are the entirety of God. He cannot be greater than the sum of His parts, because there are no parts which comprise the sum, the sum just is.

Either way, you’ve not actually given a reason for your assertion, you’ve simply asserted it, and from what it seems like you’re saying, your assertion is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Because there must be a reason that the whole looks in specific way otherwise the whole could look any different way. This means that there exists a function (any reason is a function) which relates the whole to the parts. Therefore there is no emergence.
 
This is a total non-sequitor.

Explain, step by step, by this statment is true.

Something like:

A: Oreo’s are my favorite cookie
B: I will always eat cookies, if offered
Therefore
C: I will always eat Oreos if offered.

C is true becasue both A and B are true.

Explain why there cannot be this emergence given your statement.

Also, explain why an emergence is necessary, you still haven’t done that, especially not in light of the fact that God is not a sum of parts, but is perfectly simple. (lacking parts).
 
Dovekin said:
Flip a coin.

Is there a reason why it comes up heads and not tails? Or tails and not heads?
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a reason why it comes up head or tail. This depends on how you flip the coin.
Dovekin said:
Then why would you think “there is always a reason why things are this way rather than other way.”
Click to expand...
Otherwise things could be this way and other way.
 
I know nothing is stagnate - lol

Predestination calls us on - !

I wonder if where all children of emergence !
 
I think STT’s point is that emergent properties would seem to come from nothing, as in, they have no sufficient reason for being, but that is irrational, therefore there are no emergent properties. He is assuming the principle of proportionate causality, which I agree with, but the error is that he is only considering how an effect can formally be in its cause. The effect can also be in the cause virtually and/or eminently, which has not been considered. An emergent property would then seem to be an effect that is not formally in its cause, but is present virtually or eminently. Or to put it another way, emergent properties do have sufficient explanations belonging to their causes. They are not “from nothing” or uncaused.
 
Last edited:
In philosophy, one may infer a property in one or more of the causes as a potential not expressed. An effect displaying that property then has sufficient cause.

As potential is not directly observable, science cannot claim sufficient reason when an effect has properties not observed in its causes.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
This is a total non-sequitor.
Click to expand...
It is not.
ProdglArchitect said:
Explain, step by step, by this statment is true.

Something like:

A: Oreo’s are my favorite cookie
B: I will always eat cookies, if offered
Therefore
C: I will always eat Oreos if offered.

C is true becasue both A and B are true.
Click to expand...
Ok. This can be done in two steps. Here you go:
A:
  1. The whole looks specific way
  2. There is a reason when things looks specific way (Like a drop of water is similar/looks similar in term of property to a bulk of water and different from a piece of gold)
  3. Therefore there is a reason that the whole looks specific way
    B:
  4. There is a reason why the whole looks specific way
  5. Any reason is a function (take the premises and return the conclusion)
  6. Therefore there is a function which explains why the whole looks specific way (no emergence)
ProdglArchitect said:
Explain why there cannot be this emergence given your statement.
Click to expand...
Please see above.
ProdglArchitect said:
Also, explain why an emergence is necessary, you still haven’t done that, especially not in light of the fact that God is not a sum of parts, but is perfectly simple. (lacking parts).
Click to expand...
I don’t believe in emergence. That is people problem. They think that the whole is more than the parts because they think they cannot explain the properties of the whole in term of properties of parts. I am arguing that that there is a function which related the properties of the whole to the properties of parts therefore there is no emergence.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
I think STT’s point is that emergent properties would seem to come from nothing, as in, they have no sufficient reason for being, but that is irrational, therefore there are no emergent properties. He is assuming the principle of proportionate causality, which I agree with, but the error is that he is only considering how an effect can formally be in its cause. The effect can also be in the cause virtually and/or eminently, which has not been considered. An emergent property would then seem to be an effect that is not formally in its cause, but is present virtually or eminently. Or to put it another way, emergent properties do have sufficient explanations belonging to their causes. They are not “from nothing” or uncaused.
Click to expand...
I am not saying that but interesting line of thought (please see post 15). What do mean with eminently?
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
In philosophy, one may infer a property in one or more of the causes as a potential not expressed. An effect displaying that property then has sufficient cause.

As potential is not directly observable, science cannot claim sufficient reason when an effect has properties not observed in its causes.
Click to expand...
Do you mind to elaborate?
 
STT said:
  1. Therefore there is a function which explains why the whole looks specific way (no emergence)
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is still a non sequitur. Why does the existence of a function preclude the possibility of an emergence.

Either way, this really has nothing to do with God
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top