https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330723666_Emergent_Quantum_Mechanics_David_Bohm_Centennial_Perspectives#:~:text=These%20properties%20are%20closely%20related%20to%20Emergent%20Quantum,zone%20between%20classical%20%28Hamiltonian%29%20mechanics%20and%20its%20quantization.

Emergence is identical to relationship. Build a Venn diagram of any two things. The overlap is where emergent qualities exist. Whether they are relevant enough to be considered as separate things themselves depends on intended use. Emergent properties are a different metaphor for the same things but at a higher level/scale of understanding.

Here's a link to a famous article written in 1972 - "More is Different."

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4047/393

You'll find it referenced in just about every article you read on the hierarchies of science and emergence. Take a look. It really helped me.

Emergence and quantum mechanics describe different kinds of phenomena.

Emergence is identical to relationship — Kaiser Basileus

Here is one of my examples of weak emergence. What is the "relationship"?

It's the vernacular definition, the relationship between parts. Test it by replacing the term relationship where you'd otherwise use the term emergence and see if the relationships still holds true, if the sentence still makes sense. Weak emergence, weak relationships > The emergent properties apparently aren't very strongly connected to the parts. Makes sense. And it points to missing casual data.

Weak emergence, weak relationships > The emergent properties apparently aren't very strongly connected to the parts — Kaiser Basileus

"Weak emergence" is a technical term and does not mean "weakly" emergent. It implies the equivalent of a computer program producing an unexpected and largely unpredictable outcome. Thus the image I posted.

Here is one of my examples of weak emergence. What is the "relationship"? — jgill

Is this the result of one of your mathematical formulas ?

" I have written many math programs over the years in connection with my interest in infinite compositions of complex functions in the complex plane. In another forum (now deceased) there was minor controversy over whether imagery produced from this mathematics - and virtually unpredictable - was a kind of art, like fractals." - jgill

Is this the result of one of your mathematical formulas ? — Pop

Yes. I've developed the elementary theory of infinite compositions of complex functions in the complex plane - a subject of very, very low importance in mathematics. It's a kind of dynamic systems. The image arises from a BASIC program I wrote some time ago.

David Chalmers, a philosopher and social scientist, wrote a nice article on weak and strong emergence a few years ago.

In my opinion it is also a very interesting and valid art form. It shows how emergence occurs. :up:

If it was me, I would use the formula as the title for the work, and in the blurb I would explain how consciousness emerges in a similar manner, as a relationship of interacting parts, consistent with complexity theory.

Just something that came to my mind - you obviously have your own plans for it. :smile:

The language used in the discription of Emergent Properties seems very similar to the language used to describe quantum mechanics. The relationship - if any - seems to be philosophical. Can someone provide references? — Don Wade

Generally, Emergent Properties are characteristic of a system-as-a-whole, rather than of individual components of the system. Those collective properties seem to mysteriously emerge from complex interrelationships between parts of the whole. The emergent effects are called "weak" when the ultimate cause is hidden within the complexity of causation. But when the effect can be traced back to a specific cause, it is considered to be "strong". So, Quantum Mechanics is a misnomer, because the links between causes & effects are seldom traceable to an obvious unbroken chain of causation. That's why I say that Quantum Theory has crossed over the line between reductive Science & holistic Philosophy. :smile:

Emergence in Philosophy :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Emergence in Physics :
The term emergent is used to evoke collective behaviour of a large number of microscopic constituents that is qualitatively different than the behaviours of the individual constituents.
https://www.nature.com/articles/npjquantmats201624

Emergence is a Holistic phenomenon, that can't be explained via reductive methods of science :
Reductionism breaks the world into elementary building blocks. Emergence finds the simple laws that arise out of complexity. These two complementary ways of viewing the universe come together in modern theories of quantum gravity.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/to-solve-the-biggest-mystery-in-physics-join-two-kinds-of-law-20170907/

Causality in a quantum world :
. . . quantum superposition can create situations in which cause-and-effect relationships between events are not well-defined.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.20180328a/full/

Emergence is identical to relationship. — Kaiser Basileus

It's the vernacular definition, the relationship between parts — Kaiser Basileus

I think you are correct. Its not the typical understanding of emergence, but if a relationship is a connection between parts, a cooperation, repulsion, or interaction, then the relationship is an emergent property that neither of the parts can possess on their own, so relationship = emergence. I think this would be the most fundamental level of emergence.

If I follow the logic, it leads me to conclude that the relationship of information and energy is matter, where matter is an emergent property! I think this is correct.

A good paper on emergence can be found here. There is nothing in it that contradicts this understanding.

Generally, Emergent Properties are characteristic of a system-as-a-whole, rather than of individual components of the system. — Gnomon

What is the minimum number of parts required to constitute a system? I think two!

enformation = matter. As per above post. What do you think?

My metaphor for that relationship is that matter is low entropy, entangled energy, but i'm not a physicist. Anyhow, you've got the idea straight.

Emergence is a lot like hunting and finding Easter Eggs. Sometimes, one can even find the so-called "prize egg". My opinion, (not even a theory), is: the "hidden-until-discovered" properties defining emergence is how the mind works (more neuroscience than physic). The brain is limited in the number of "properties" that can be assililated into what we define as an object, or idea. This limiting factor keeps us from seeing what would normally seem obvious - until it jumps-out-at-us (discovery). Then we try to explain why we didn't see it before by coining words like "emergence". If one really searches, they can discover all kinds of emergent properties in many fields of study. As a result, I believe "emergence" is a very interesting field of study in itself.

If one really searches, they can discover all kinds of emergent properties in many fields of study. — Don Wade

If a relationship is the minimum requirement for emergence, then the entire universe is constantly emerging.

What is the minimum number of parts required to constitute a system? I think two! — Pop

That's a hard question to answer. A system is composed of interacting parts, not just to a particular number of elements. For example, a pile of sand might contain thousands of grains, but each grain reacts to inputs of energy independently. Yet, if you add some lime cement to the pile, it will soon harden into the integrated system of grains we call "concrete", with emergent structural qualities not found in the grains. In that case, the multiple grains act together as one. Such interaction is what the site linked below calls "Process". :smile:

1. Sorites paradox : If one removes a single grain of sand from a heap, they still have a heap. If they keep removing single grains, the heap will disappear. Can a single grain of sand make the difference between heap and non-heap? [Holism]
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page85.html

When you look at any system, in its simplest form, it has 3 components. It’s what I’ll call IPO: Input, Process, Output.
https://www.asianefficiency.com/systems/3-parts-to-every-system/

If I follow the logic, it leads me to conclude that the relationship of information and energy is matter, where matter is an emergent property! I think this is correct. . . . enformation = matter. As per above post. What do you think? — Pop

Yes. But it depends on what you mean by "matter". Aristotle's Hylomorphism (matter + form) was not referring to any particular lump of actual Matter, but as the general Potential to become a particular material object. For example, raw copper & tin, have the potential to become bronze, and a shapeless lump of bronze has the potential to become a statue of Zeus. But what actualizes that potential is the mind or soul of the artist, who enforms the raw materials.

So, being picky, I would reword your equation as Raw Material + Enformation = Artwork (a physical work of art). Or perhaps : matter (lower case) + Enformaction (guided energy) = Novel System (with emergent properties). Or, more to your point : Primal Energy (input) + Natural Laws (process) = Organized Matter (output). That equation is referring to the energetic blast of energy from the Big Bang, which becomes organized (processed) into matter (atoms of hydrogen). Anyway, your equation of Enformation with Matter is essentially what Einstein was saying in (E = MC^2) : raw energy + the enforming power of light vibrations = produces the emergent property of matter called "Mass". Sorry, I may be just complicating your elegant equation. :yikes:

a pile of sand might contain thousands of grains, but each grain reacts to inputs of energy independently. Yet, if you add some lime cement to the pile, it will soon harden into the integrated system of grains we call "concrete", with emergent structural qualities not found in the grains. — Gnomon

Not every change in characteristics is emergence. In your example, the behavior of the concrete is directly causally related to the physical and chemical characteristics of the sand and cement. That's not emergence.

But what actualizes that potential is the mind or soul of the artist, who enforms the raw materials. — Gnomon

The relationship actualizes the potential. @Kaiser Basileus nailed it!

your equation of Enformation with Matter is essentially what Einstein was saying in (E = MC^2) : raw energy + the enforming power of light vibrations = produces the emergent property of matter called "Mass" — Gnomon

Yes Einstein equated energy and mass. Whereas information describes volume and pattern ( form ). So the two together describe matter.

Enformation cannot exist without being embedded in matter, in my understanding.

Not every change in characteristics is emergence. In your example, the behavior of the concrete is directly causally related to the physical and chemical characteristics of the sand and cement. That's not emergence. — T Clark

Are you saying that concrete does not have emergent (structural) qualities that are not characteristic of the sand & cement separately? Since the new properties of the combined elements are directly caused by combining specific chemical qualities, I'd call it "Weak Emergence". But, I was only trying to give a simple example of emergence. A complex example of "Strong Emergence" would involve the same kind of technicalities and uncertainties as the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness. :smile:

Are you saying that concrete does not have emergent (structural) qualities that are not characteristic of the sand & cement separately? — Gnomon

The term "emergence" has a specific technical meaning in this context. If it means what you indicate it does, all physical and chemical interaction between matter and energy represents emergence. The word loses all meaning.

The relationship actualizes the potential. Kaiser Basileus nailed it! — Pop

Yes. It's the mind of the artist that imagines the future interrelations that are currently only potential. The artwork is the final (actualized) product or output of combining several raw potentials. Hence, the art is in the Actualization of Potential. :smile:

Enformation : The Latin root “informare” meant to give recognizable (meaningful, significant) shape to something. In that sense a sculptor “in-forms” a blank slab of marble with a physical shape to represent a pre-existing image in his mind. In other words, a mental image somehow “causes” physical raw material to take on a shape that, in turn, “causes” cognition in another mind.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

"Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it."
___Michaelangelo

"In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole." - Wikipedia

The normal understanding relates to complex systems, but as per previous posts a relationship is an emergent property, unless you can prove otherwise?

Yes. It's the mind of the artist that imagines the future interrelations that are currently only potential. — Gnomon

This would be G*D?

I'm seeing it more along the lines of the entire universe is constantly emerging due to the evolving relationship of information and energy.

There seems to be many ways to express objects, or actions, as emergent. Scientist seem to shy away from the study of emergence because it seems too much like magic. However, that criteria may be a draw to other people. Being familiar with emergence helps to eliminate some of the spookiness from the subject. I can imagine Neils Bohr must have had similar thoughts - when trying to convince Einstine about his thoughts on the structure of the atom.

Would you disagree with relationship = emergence? Initially I did, but I couldn't find a logical flaw, perhaps you can?

Some interesting things happen when we think of a pile of sand. Example: "Sorites Paradox" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox . A grain of sand has certain properties we recognize. A pile of sand also has certain properties we can recognize. But, we can't visualize the two groups of properties at the same time - resulting in a so-called paradox. In this example the "pile" of sand could also be called an emergent property. This example could also be listed a solution to the paradox.

"In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole." - Wikipedia

The normal understanding relates to complex systems, but as per previous posts a relationship is an emergent property, unless you can prove otherwise? — Pop

Sand and cement have known physical and chemical properties, including strength. Resistance to force, i.e. strength, is not a new property or behavior and your example is not emergence. Unless you can prove otherwise.

As I indicated with Pop, this is not the correct use of the word "emergence" in this context.

The relationship here is sand and cement. The result is concrete - is concrete not an emergent property that neither sand or cement posses on their own ?

David Chalmers, a philosopher and social scientist, wrote a nice article on weak and strong emergence a few years ago. — jgill

I downloaded the Chalmers article. Thanks for the suggestion.

I didn't really buy his distinction between strong and weak emergence. Most of the interesting phenomena I think of when I talk about emergence - e.g. transitions between hierarchies of knowledge such as between chemistry and biology - he calls weak emergence. The only phenomenon he considers strongly emergent is consciousness. That's as far as I got. It's a bad case of special pleading and I don't buy it.