The first is creatio ex nihilo and I find issues with that when you apply it as a full causation narrative as we can trace objects back (say where an apple just came from) without any reference to nothing. — Shwah

Emergentism is a causation narrative that means the new object in succession has traits distinct from the prior object(s) which it emerges from. It is usually justified by statistical mechanics, among other probability-based fields. I've never seen an ontological example of emergentism just epistemological configurations. — Shwah

Emanationism is where objects have all their meaning and ontology from an object they are a "part of". For instance apples emanate from a tree where so long as a tree exists, apples will be made according to the tree and the tree according to the environment etc. — Shwah

The last one I know is successionism which is similar to emergentism except no new variables or traits are created, there's just an advancement from the preceding object in the same way as preceding that. An example is cantor's different sets of numbers. — Shwah

Yeah that's fair. I think for me causation doesn't inherently need time in order to speak about cause. To me cause is solely the "why" something "is" so the basis is a type of predication of the is. This definition and generalization allows an inclusion of math/logical problems such as 1+1=2. If we include time then we can't include universals and then we have no means to speak about "what caused math" which is important for the "foundations of mathematics" etc. — Shwah

What are some good conceptions of causation in principles or full narratives that you prefer? — Shwah

game of life — Shwah

It creates multiple shapes etc and people have tried to map what shapes are created (when birds appear and what happens after) and it seems impossible but the issue is they're establishing an epistemological fraking of the code ("birds") then trying to create patterns off that when the code doesn't compute by that so epistemologically emergentism seems to appear but ontologically this isn't the case. — Shwah

Epistemological is just a way we try to order things — Shwah

There's a particular order where the ontological nature of an object informs what epistemic standards can be used to understand it (such as what eyes or hands will "know" about a blade of grass under a running river). This order is asymmetric where the "belief, degree of knowledge, hunger-inducement the idea may make you etc" have no impact on the ontological position in question (say quantum mechanics or theism etc). — Shwah

So for emergent computing they try to develop a valid structure for dealing with objects they propose exist (such as birds and them turning into flocks) and formally this fails because the game of life deals with completely different units (just dots in general I suppose). — Shwah

Sometimes the word used is epistemic such as epistemic priviliege (where one is privilieged with a unique epistemic set, or way to deal with reality, based on your upbringing (or based on ontological events that happened in your life vs epistemic ones which you may have participated in epistemically but not actually such as watching a horror movie or waving back at someone who was not waving at you)). — Shwah

The first is creatio ex nihilo and I find issues with that when you apply it as a full causation narrative as we can trace objects back (say where an apple just came from) without any reference to nothing. I'm not sure what benefit it brings.
Creatio ex dei seems to be similar but conceptually has advantages without a postulation of nothingness. — Shwah

Emergentism is a causation narrative that means the new object in succession has traits distinct from the prior object(s) which it emerges from. It is usually justified by statistical mechanics, among other probability-based fields. I've never seen an ontological example of emergentism just epistemological configurations. — Shwah

Emanationism is where objects have all their meaning and ontology from an object they are a "part of". For instance apples emanate from a tree where so long as a tree exists, apples will be made according to the tree and the tree according to the environment etc.
I feel like this is the best creation/causation narrative and explains everything. This seems to imply a hierarchical foundationalism and math would be ordered like pascal's triangle which seems to make the most sense for understanding math in equations, areas etc. — Shwah

Sure so the "logical configurations of energy" reminds me of statistical mechanics and the argument that temperature emerges from an individual state of atoms but to me that seems epistemological. I was wondering if you had a means to describe the examples you gave in an ontological manner. — Shwah

Completely unfamiliar, if you need me to do some light reading I can. — Shwah

If the continuity in scientific change is of ‘form or structure’, then perhaps we should abandon commitment to even the putative reference of theories to objects and properties, and account for the success of science in other terms. — SEP

It creates multiple shapes etc and people have tried to map what shapes are created (when birds appear and . . . — Shwah

Weak emergence describes new properties arising in systems as a result of the interactions at an elemental level.

Strong emergence describes the direct causal action of a high-level system upon its components; qualities produced this way are irreducible to the system's constituent parts.[11] The whole is other than the sum of its parts. It is argued then that no simulation of the system can exist, for such a simulation would itself constitute a reduction of the system to its constituent parts.[10] Physics lacks well-established examples of strong emergence, unless it is interpreted as the impossibility in practice to explain the whole in terms of the parts. Practical impossibility may be a more useful distinction than one in principle, since it is easier to determine and quantify, and does not imply the use of mysterious forces, but simply reflects the limits of our capability.

I don't personally see the nature of consciousness being emergent — Shwah

So it says objects have no intrinsic traits just relational ones? So a carbon atom isn't a carbon atom per se but the rearrangement of protons, neutrons and electrons? I have some reservations but if that's correct then I'm on board. — Shwah

or based on ontological events that happened in your life vs epistemic ones which you may have participated in epistemically but not actually such as watching a horror movie or waving back at someone who was not waving at you)). — Shwah

On the other hand weak emergence runs throughout my explorations in dynamical systems in the complex plane — jgill

Baked into the concept of a maker is a powerful, conscious, intelligent being and a beginning. — Agent Smith