Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Agnew: on 2/27/17 at 3:35am UTC, wrote You have got to be kidding...

Natesh Ganesh: on 2/23/17 at 23:56pm UTC, wrote Dear Anthony, A short and good essay on what I would agree as well is the...

Jonathan Dickau: on 2/23/17 at 6:12am UTC, wrote I enjoyed this essay greatly Garrett.. You do a really excellent job of...

Willy K: on 2/22/17 at 14:07pm UTC, wrote Excellent writeup, though brief. Really enjoyed reading it, since it...

basudeba mishra: on 2/19/17 at 4:16am UTC, wrote Dear Sir, We thoroughly enjoyed your essay. You are right when you say:...

Steve Dufourny: on 2/11/17 at 8:52am UTC, wrote Hello Mr Lisi, You merit a prize also, your technical method is very...

Antony Lisi: on 2/1/17 at 23:42pm UTC, wrote Thanks for this comment. You're right that this essay would benefit from an...

Jochen Szangolies: on 2/1/17 at 13:11pm UTC, wrote Dear Garrett, I enjoyed reading your essay. Despite its brevity, it...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jose Koshy: "James Putnam, What do you mean by the acceleration of light? Do you mean..." in Alternative Models of...

Jose Koshy: "Steven, Because we are not sitting face to face, I may not be replying..." in Alternative Models of...

Algernon kk: "Steve Agnew is a legend for doing that. A lot of people at online resume..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...

Mohan rao: "Voot app free download Flash Recovery" in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Mohan rao: "My partner and I stumbled over here different website and thought I might..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Gary Simpson: "Ted, BTW, it is the community vote that matters ... not the public vote...." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Gary Simpson: "Ted, You statement regarding your score does not make any sense. You..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Algernon kk: "Steve Agnew is a legend for doing that. A lot of people at custom..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)

Rescuing Reality
A "retrocausal" rewrite of physics, in which influences from the future can affect the past, could solve some quantum quandaries—saving Einstein's view of reality along the way.


FQXi FORUM
February 28, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Emergence by Antony Garrett Lisi [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

This essay's rating: Community = 5.8; Public = 6.2


Author Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Jan. 10, 2017 @ 21:51 GMT
Essay Abstract

Everything complex emerges from vast numbers of simpler things and their interactions.

Author Bio

Physicist, Pacific Science Institute

Download Essay PDF File




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 11, 2017 @ 14:26 GMT
Dear author,

I admire your excellent style, and I agree with you up to page 3. However, I doubt that structures that are documented in the strata in the earth's surface arose from a comprehensive scientific foundation.

++++

report post as inappropriate

Author Antony Garrett Lisi replied on Jan. 17, 2017 @ 18:36 GMT
That analogy was part of the metaphorical allegory.




John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 11, 2017 @ 19:37 GMT
Would you go another step - that emergence is a principle of the universe. Do you accept that emergence implies the whole is greater than the sum of the agents.

Hodge

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 12, 2017 @ 02:10 GMT
Antony Garrett Lisi,

Your essay assumes the emergence of something, somehow.

Firstly, the essay doesn’t give examples of simple emergence which might help to explain more complex emergence.

E.g. does anything “arise naturally” when elementary particles interact, or atoms interact, or molecules interact, or large molecules like DNA interact (there are approximately 204 billion atoms in a human DNA molecule [1])? Surely you need a few examples of simple emergence in order to hypothesise that something similar, but bigger, could emerge out of the 100 trillion atoms interacting in a human cell? Your example of acidity is just an example of a higher-level description of existing properties, not an example of “qualitatively new properties” arising.

Secondly, the essay doesn’t say what “qualitatively new properties” might emerge. What type of thing or quality are we looking for, or does fully developed “thought, passion, love” emerge ex nihilo?

Thirdly, the essay doesn’t say how to represent emergence. Does a third dimension emerge out of a 2 dimensional graph? Are the shapes, that are sometimes observed on a graph of a complex system, analogous to the emergence of something? From what point of view does something emerge: from the point of view of a pixel embedded in a representation of a complex system, or from the point of view of someone observing the whole representation of the complex system?

1. https://michaelgr.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/how-many-atoms-to
-encode-the-human-genome

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 15, 2017 @ 00:37 GMT
(Antony) Garrett (Lisi),

To further pursue the issue of the mathematical representation of emergence:

1. Human observers are already highly evolved, and they have a high-level point of view. From the point of view of human observers, shapes can seem to emerge from graphical representations of the numerical values of complex system parameters (e.g. the Mandelbrot set), but it takes a pre-existing higher-level point of view to observe it. These shapes do not represent emergence - they only represent a set of numerical values (and they do not represent the emergence of a “set”!). Nothing new is happening from the point of view of the pixels representing the complex system: the numerical values are changing, that is all that is happening.

2. Emergence can be represented on a graph of the numerical values of system parameters if and only if you can get an equation for a new system parameter, or alternatively a new equation for an existing system parameter, to emerge from this graph. Logically, such a thing can never occur.

Conclusion: There can be no emergence from graphs representing complex mathematical systems. “Emergence” describes what happens when an equation for a new system parameter is introduced to the system, or a new equation for an existing system parameter is introduced to the system. These new equations are ex nihilo introductions to a mathematical system: they cannot evolve from a mathematical system.

Similarly, in actual reality, emergence is the equivalent of ex nihilo introductions of new equations to the system.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 17, 2017 @ 13:11 GMT
Re Emergence:

See https://aeon.co/videos/a-transfixing-audiovisual-dive-into-v
arieties-of-emergence : A transfixing audiovisual dive into varieties of emergence.

But the issue is not “how does structure emerge?”. The issue is “how do rules (representable by mathematical equations) emerge?”. The answer is that rules that control the system in question don’t emerge: rules are ex nihilo introductions to the system.

If you don't or can't add new rules to the system, the system is stagnant.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 17, 2017 @ 16:50 GMT
Dear Ms. Ford,

No matter how “evolved” human observers might become, they can only observe surface for only surface has ever existed.

Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings such as the ones you effortlessly indulge in. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my brilliant essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am not as complicated as theories of reality are.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Lee Bloomquist wrote on Jan. 12, 2017 @ 03:34 GMT
I especially like your beginning: "Thought."

Reminds me of the equation "self=(thinking, self)."

Or--

self = (thinking, (thinking, self))

self = (thinking, (thinking, (thinking, self)))

And so on and so on, until one day, in some cases, it's just

self=(self)

At this level, "self" is maximal simplicity. But underneath is complexity we don't yet understand-- breath, the proprioceptor system that works with it, for example.

Thanks for a great essay!

report post as inappropriate


David Brown wrote on Jan. 14, 2017 @ 11:26 GMT
"... to simulate something does not mean you understand the thing ..." The preceding is an important point — but I say that if you study a thing and ignore an important genius then you should be sure that the work of that genius is not relevant to that thing. I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. I noticed that in your 2007 publication "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0711.0770v1.pdf

there are 22 references, but none to Milgrom's MOND. Do you think that MOND is wrong? Do you think that MOND can be explained by conventional physics?

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 15, 2017 @ 15:40 GMT
Dear Dr. Garrett,

Every real thing has a real surface. This real surface did not emerge from anywhere.

One real Universe must have only one reality. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my brilliant essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am not as complicated as theories of reality are.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 00:29 GMT
Antony Garrett Lisi,

Re the fact that structure emerges from a graphical representation of a system, but the rules that control the system structure don’t emerge from the system – the rules are in effect ex nihilo additions to the system:

In a complex system, anything that has control of the rules (that in turn control the parameter numeric value outcomes) has control of the system. E.g. if a pixel, in a graphical representation of a complex system, had agency and could occasionally make its own rule for one of its own parameter numeric value outcomes, then that pixel has partial control of the complex system in which it is immersed. In a graphical representation, “agency” is about control of the rules.

Getting back to real life, as opposed to graphical representations of systems, “the character of the natural world” we live in is fundamentally about agency: “quantum theory is fundamentally about agency”. “In some way yet to be fully fleshed out, each quantum system seems to be a seat of active creativity and possibility, whose outward effect is as an “agent of change” for the parts of the world that come into contact with it. Observer and system, “agent and reagent,” might be a way to put it.” [1]

1. QBism: Quantum Theory as a Hero's Handbook, Christopher A. Fuchs & Blake C. Stacey, https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.07308

report post as inappropriate


Lee Bloomquist wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 07:40 GMT
Garrett, you should read my footnote about "The Dream Child Hypothesis."

It talks about the emergence of dreams, and that they can exist on their own, before the self they have been waiting for exists. If the self never comes, dreams die, of course. But at least no self has died. Anyway, that's what the footnote is about-- the mathematics and the neuroscience.

report post as inappropriate


Joseph J. Jean-Claude wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 14:48 GMT
The author offers an interesting interpretation of the structural development of matter in ever more complex shells with the notion of "emergence". However, he does not offer a mathematical basis or any element thereof as to how emergence is construed. Short of proposing a mathematical view of how intentionality emerges, some mathematical sense of the very construct of emergence should have at least been proposed in my view. Good flowing writing style though.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 22:45 GMT
Hi Garrett,

I really enjoyed reading your essay.I think you present a really good argument and clearly explain emergence. I wonder do you really think it could be emergence all the way down (rather than turtles) and no foundational level of material reality; Or was that just a clever and amusing way to wrap the essay up?

report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 11:51 GMT
Hi Georgina,

happy that you contribute to the discussions!

Do you elaborate an essay for the current contest? Your ideas are always interesting.

Best wishes

Stefan Weckbach

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 23, 2017 @ 03:08 GMT
Just starting to think about it Stefan; maybe.

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 12:05 GMT
Dear Antony Garrett Lisi,

you give a concise summary of the concept of emergence. I like your clear and straightforward writing style and you make your main points easy to trace.

You point out that the core idea of emergence is its cumulative effects of systematical side-effects of some compounded systems. I understand these side-effects being systematical per definition (this is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jack Hamilton James wrote on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 00:03 GMT
Thanks for your interesting article, I enjoyed it.

If we arrange some match sticks we get a triangle. Or we get a square.

But to get a square we have to add one more matchstick.

Are squares and triangles real? Or just perception?

All perception of these properties is derived from consciousness, which is itself by this logic an emergent property of the arrangement of biological life.

So are any of these properties actually real?

report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 00:25 GMT
You say.... Hierarchical levels exist for human behavior. Say particle level, atomic level, chemical properties level, etc....

But what will guide at the top level...?

What is that top level... ?

Why that level will decide the goals.....?

report post as inappropriate


Jochen Szangolies wrote on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 13:11 GMT
Dear Garrett,

I enjoyed reading your essay. Despite its brevity, it manages to make an important point: to paraphrase, that while in principle everything is determined by knowing the exact configuration of some fundamental stratum (if such exists) and the laws according to which it behaves, it is not generally the case that this knowledge suffices to effectively derive all facts on higher level strata. There are no shortcuts for complex systems.

While thus everything is ontologically of one piece, epistemically, regarding our knowledge of the world, it is often practically impossible to reduce higher-level behaviours and properties to lower-level interactions (while the former are nevertheless completely determined by the latter). Hence, we observe the emergence of novelty in sufficiently complex systems---where 'sufficiently complex' here may be surprisingly simple: after all, even the three-body problem does not admit of a general analytic solution, and as you note, we tend to have to deal with systems (such as the human brain) which are a little bit more complex than that.

But I would have hoped for a more in-depth discussion of how such emergence may proceed---that is, how one can use the concept of emergence in order to build a bridge between the base physical facts about the universe and the facts about, e.g., human psychology, which seem to differ from the physical facts in kind, and not just in degree. I think the essay would have gained much from a more explicit discussion in this regard.

report post as inappropriate

Author Antony Garrett Lisi replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 23:42 GMT
Thanks for this comment. You're right that this essay would benefit from an in-depth technical example of how emergence happens from one strata to another, but since there are a multitude of readily available examples within each scientific field, I chose to leave it as an exercise for the reader.




Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 08:52 GMT
Hello Mr Lisi,

You merit a prize also, your technical method is very relevant.I learnt new things, thanks for sharing.

All the best and good luck in this contest

report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 04:16 GMT
Dear Sir,

We thoroughly enjoyed your essay.

You are right when you say: “Our fates are not guided by mystical energies or the motions of the planets against the stars”. But when you say: “Thought, passion, love... this internal world we experience, including all the meaning and purpose in our lives, arises naturally from the interactions of elementary particles”, can you explain the mechanism? Can “unimaginably large numbers of interactions” “make this magic possible”? A mountain is made up of more number of quarks and leptons than human beings, which are subject to the same interactions on a larger scale. Do they exhibit similar emotions? The technological advancements in various sectors has led to data-driven discoveries in the belief that if enough data is gathered, one can achieve a “God’s eye view”. Data is not synonymous with knowledge. Knowledge is the concepts stored in memory. By combining lots of data, we generate something big and different, but unless we have “knowledge” about the “physical mixing procedure” to generate the desired effect, it may create the Frankenstein’s monster - a tale of unintended consequences.

You talk about emergent strata. But what is emerging? Is it the laws of Nature or their revelation to us? In the present context, the obvious answer is the second. But the first cannot be ignored. We find a set of rules that remain invariant through space and time. The same with objects (matter) and forces (energy). But then, we are also finding hints about their unification. They must have emerged from some common source. Our goal is to find that common source by moving from diversity to unity – not emergence, but convergence.

Regards,

basudeba

report post as inappropriate


Willy K wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 14:07 GMT
Excellent writeup, though brief. Really enjoyed reading it, since it dovetailed very well with my own views regarding emergence. So far, I am yet to find another writeup that matches my views so closely. Somewhat depressing given that there are over 50 submissions already.

The only place where I would beg to differ would be the outermost layers of emergence being sociology and economics. My essay is premised on the current final layer being the constitutional nation state. Economics can be shown to be embedded within it (as a kind of sub-emergence), but sociology probably can't be. At best, the constitutional setup can be modeled to rise naturally from the normal social interactions of people. I am not too sure, but I don't think that would qualify as sociology.

Apparently, my essay is unfamiliar territory for most people on this forum. Do you think I should publish it on viXra for better feedback (they have a section for social science). I entered the contest primarily to get feedback on the work so that the mistakes could be rectified and the model could be improved. That doesn't appear likely as of now.

Warm Regards, Willy

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 06:12 GMT
I enjoyed this essay greatly Garrett..

You do a really excellent job of summing up exactly what emergence gives us, where differences in kind arise from the shift in scale resulting from the vastness of huge numbers. I talk about a mechanism for emergence in my own essay, but you say almost everything I don't - the nuts and bolts of what it is - and I thank you for your effort. The brevity was refreshing, but also a little disappointing as your unique view on some points might be valuable - had you elaborated.

Your contribution certainly adds to the mix, in this year's contest. Though brief; your essay has many useful insights. I hope you do well here in the contest, and I hope you enjoy our contributed efforts as well. I feature the octonions and mention E8 prominently, in my essay, so even though I don't mention your work specifically - I do talk about things you know about, or appreciate, and I'd value your opinion.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Natesh Ganesh wrote on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 23:56 GMT
Dear Anthony,

A short and good essay on what I would agree as well is the path to the solution. You might be interested in my submission 'Intention is Physical' where I show how higher level goals and objectives can emerge as a tradeoff between energy dissipation and complexity.

Natesh

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 03:35 GMT
You have got to be kidding...

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'F' and 'H':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.