Yes, but can it prove its own consistency?

Yes, but can it prove its own consistency? — Posty McPostface

Yes, what we understand from one argument is more than sum of words. What is more is created by our mind.

a system made of "n" particles in which particle "i" has a set of properties Pi={Pi1,..., Pim}, where "m" is number of properties of a particle and Pjk is the property "k" of particle "j". Any measurable property of the system is only a function of {P1,...,PM}. — bahman

There is a hierarchy of levels of properties L0, L1, …, Ln, … of which at least one distinct level is associated with the subject matter of each special science, and Lj cannot be reduced to Li, for any i < j.

-Paul Humphreys, cited from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/

The whole can always be expressed in term of its constitute therefore there is no emergence. — bahman

You're going to have to specify - a lot - as to what kind of "whole" you mean, and as well "expressed." For example: do you mean that any text can always be expressed in terms of the letters that constitute it? Music in notes? Sense from mere sounds? Without further qualification and explication, I'm afraid the notions in the OP are too vague to respond to.

You might have said, "I think some wholes may be entirely expressed through their parts, but I cannot think of any. Can anyone?"

If you think about the word "expression" you might soon enough come to think that that nothing of any kind whatsoever is "expressable" in terms of its parts.

Do you mean there can be no emergent properties out of a given system? I'm sorry if I've misunderstood, but its rather vague

You're going to have to specify - a lot - as to what kind of "whole" you mean, and as well "expressed." For example: do you mean that any text can always be expressed in terms of the letters that constitute it? Music in notes? Sense from mere sounds? Without further qualification and explication, I'm afraid the notions in the OP are too vague to respond to. — tim wood

It's not so much vague as artificially restricted. If there is only one system, one language, one ontology, then there is nothing to be emergent. And you are right, there is no "whole" here either - in order to have a "whole" one would have to introduce something over and above a system of particles. Without that something extra, the system of particles is, trivially, all you have.

An example of a whole emerging from particles could be continuous medium, such as a fluid, emerging from molecular interactions. But here we have two different ontologies, two different languages, two different sets of properties - one pertaining to the particulate system and the other - to the continuous one. For example, there is no such thing as "pressure" in the particulate system (but one can link pressure to molecular dynamics via a bridge law).

And yes, read the article that @Akanthinos linked. "Emergence" is a complicated topic (in part because there is no common view of what it is).

"Emergence" is a complicated topic (in part because there is no common view of what it is). — SophistiCat

The word "emergent" simply means "arising unexpectedly". It refers to an observation that contradicts our model of reality. It refers to an observation that is unpredictable in the sense that it cannot be predicted with our model of reality. If your model of reality says that every swan is white then a black swan would be considered emergent because your model cannot predict it. Very simple. Unfortunately, some people are confused and so they want to make everything unnecessarily complicated and that under the guise of profound complexity.

There is a hierarchy of levels of properties L0, L1, …, Ln, … of which at least one distinct level is associated with the subject matter of each special science, and Lj cannot be reduced to Li, for any i < j.

-Paul Humphreys, cited from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/ — Akanthinos

I understand what he is trying to say but what I am arguing is that any macro-property is reducible to a set of micro-properties. What he is saying is that macro-properties are independent.

You're going to have to specify - a lot - as to what kind of "whole" you mean, and as well "expressed." — tim wood

By whole I mean sum of parts.

For example: do you mean that any text can always be expressed in terms of the letters that constitute it? Music in notes? Sense from mere sounds? — tim wood

Yes.

You might have said, "I think some wholes may be entirely expressed through their parts, but I cannot think of any. Can anyone?" — tim wood

I am saying all wholes are entirely expressed through their parts.

If you think about the word "expression" you might soon enough come to think that that nothing of any kind whatsoever is "expressable" in terms of its parts. — tim wood

That is not true. The pressure of a gas is expressible in term of average force excreted to the wall.

Do you mean there can be no emergent properties out of a given system? I'm sorry if I've misunderstood, but its rather vague — SpacedOut

Yes, considering OP. Do you have an example of emergent property?

An example of a whole emerging from particles could be continuous medium, such as a fluid, emerging from molecular interactions. But here we have two different ontologies, two different languages, two different sets of properties - one pertaining to the particulate system and the other - to the continuous one. For example, there is no such thing as "pressure" in the particulate system (but one can link pressure to molecular dynamics via a bridge law). — SophistiCat

The pressure of a gas is expressible in term of average force excreted to the wall. The same applies to liquidity,etc. There is no emergent property.

The word "emergent" simply means "arising unexpectedly". It refers to an observation that contradicts our model of reality. It refers to an observation that is unpredictable in the sense that it cannot be predicted with our model of reality. If your model of reality says that every swan is white then a black swan would be considered emergent because your model cannot predict it. Very simple. Unfortunately, some people are confused and so they want to make everything unnecessarily complicated and that under the guise of profound complexity. — Magnus Anderson

Yes.

The only experience that I have had that is fully emergent is a new idea or epiphany. This would represent growth of the mind.

For example: do you mean that any text can always be expressed in terms of the letters that constitute it? Music in notes? Sense from mere sounds?
— tim wood

Yes. — bahman

Yes, it is, they do? Or yes I say they do? If the former, please show how. If the latter, please support your claim.

Here's an example to work on: "Duck." Work with that.

The only experience that I have had that is fully emergent is a new idea or epiphany. This would represent growth of the mind. — Rich

Yes, I agree with that. Realm of mind is however is different from realm of material to me.

Yes, it is, they do? Or yes I say they do? If the former, please show how. If the latter, please support your claim. — tim wood

Yes, I think so.

Here's an example to work on: "Duck." Work with that. — tim wood

Which duck?

Realm of mind is however is different from realm of material to me. — bahman

There is no reason to take a dualist stance. It can be considered all the same stuff, quantum information if you will.

↪bahman The only experience that I have had that is fully emergent is a new idea or epiphany. This would represent growth of the mind. — Rich

Depending on how you define the concept of emergence, you can say that pretty much any event is emergent. This is to emphasize that the concept of emergence must be clearly defined.

What is emergent if not that which cannot be predicted by some specific model of reality? Emergence is a relation between an event and a model of reality. There is no emergence outside of this relation. You cannot say that an event is unpredictable on its own, in the sense that it cannot be predicted by any kind of model reality, because it is possible to predict any kind of event through sheer luck. You can predict the entire universe through luck. Instead, what you can say is that an event cannot be predicted by particular model of reality. If your model of reality says that all people are bald then your model of reality cannot predict people who are not bald. That's the same exact way in which ideas can be emergent -- by not being predictable by some particular model of reality.

Depending on how you define the concept of emergence, you can say that pretty much any event is emergent. This is to emphasize that the concept of emergence must be clearly defined. — Magnus Anderson

I agree.

There is no reason to take a dualist stance. It can be considered all the same stuff, quantum information if you will. — Rich

Quantum information is constant, it cannot be created or annihilated. Therefore new idea cannot be generated.

Quantum information is constant, it cannot be created or annihilated. Therefore new idea cannot be generated. — bahman

The new idea would fundamentally consist of a different form/vibration of the entangled quantum wave. There are limitless variations.

The new idea would fundamentally consist of a different form/vibration of the entangled quantum wave. There are limitless variations. — Rich

How you could prove that what you call new idea was not there? It only could appear on surface.

How you could prove that what you call new idea was not there? It only could appear on surface. — bahman

It's a new idea for me. Another similar "idea" could have formed elsewhere or it could be completely new for the universe. It's like snowflakes, similarities with differences.

Here's an example to work on: "Duck." Work with that.
— tim wood

Which duck? — bahman

You don't get to ask that. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand your own claim.

The whole can always be expressed in term of its constitute therefore there is no emergence. — bahman

"Duck" is the constituent. If you're asking which duck, then the whole is not expressed. And that's without even looking at the problem of "expression." How, for example, does "Duck" express anything at all?

a living human brain having the property of being conscious despite its atoms and molecules not having it, but this might not count for you under your ideas of mind you mentioned.

You asked: For example: do you mean that any text can always be expressed in terms of the letters that constitute it? Music in notes? Sense from mere sounds?
I answered: Yes. Of course an intellectual agent who read a text or listen to a music create something extra when he read a text or listen to a music. That extra thing is meaning of the text which writer wanted to convey it.

I hope things is clear now.

a living human brain having the property of being conscious despite its atoms and molecules not having it, — SpacedOut

That is the problem that I am arguing against. Brain cannot become conscious if atoms and molecules are not conscious. That is the main argument presented in OP:

The whole can always be expressed in term of its constitute therefore there is no emergence.

To elaborate consider a system made of "n" particles in which particle "i" has a set of properties Pi={Pi1,..., Pim}, where "m" is number of properties of a particle and Pjk is the property "k" of particle "j". Any measurable property of the system is only a function of {P1,...,PM}. Therefore there is no emergence.

but this might not count for you under your ideas of mind you mentioned. — SpacedOut

Well, yes, consciousness is a property of mind.

↪tim wood
You asked: For example: do you mean that any text can always be expressed in terms of the letters that constitute it? Music in notes? Sense from mere sounds?
I answered: Yes. Of course an intellectual agent who read a text or listen to a music create something extra when he read a text or listen to a music. That extra thing is meaning of the text which writer wanted to convey it.

I hope things is clear now. — bahman

Let's try it out! "Duck," on your argument, completely expresses itself (whatever that means). On the other hand, the "intellectual agents" "create" the "meaning of the text." If as you say the meaning of "Duck" is the creation of the reader, then, apparently, "Duck" by itself doesn't mean anything. Perhaps it's just lines on paper. But wait! Think it through: it can't even be lines on paper, because "lines on paper" is created meaning, just as paintings are blobs of colour - or not even that!

I am not arguing against meaning. Obviously things have meaning. (How they have meaning is a whole other question.) What I am arguing is that your position seems grossly and thoughtlessly incoherent - and useless. Now figure out a way to make a better statement of your argument.

What I am arguing is simple. Think of gas for example. It exerts a pressure on the wall of container. The pressure is a property of gas however it can be expressed in term of average forces that atoms of gas exert to the wall of container. There is no emergence here. Pressure simply is related to average force. In general any system made of bunch of particles in which each has a set of properties has a set of properties which can be explained in term of properties of the particles. That is all.

For what regards duck, duck is more than a set of particles. It has a mind.

The pressure is a property of gas — bahman

See? Here's an example of the kind of problem we're having. I understand perfectly well that usually gas in a container can exert pressure on the walls of the container, the pressure depending in part on temperature. But what you said is that "the pressure is a property of gas." It isn't. I doubt if it's even correct to say that pressure is a property of gas in a container. I don't think it's a property at all. Rather it is something that happens, depending on circumstances.

In general any system made of bunch of particles in which each has a set of properties has a set of properties which can be explained in term of properties of the particles. That is all.

For what regards duck, duck is more than a set of particles. It has a mind. — bahman

Pardon, but "Duck" has no mind whatsoever. And it's clear that when you say, "in general," in general cannot be what you mean, because it simply isn't true, or a fact, in general. If nothing else, "Duck" makes that clear.

And do the particles that make up concrete have the properties of concrete?

A lack of clarity characterizes most human communication. Most human communication has built-in clarification features. Either way, absent clarification, most human communication is an exercise in nonsense and ignorance. Sometimes it's tolerated, for a variety of reasons: entertainment, sport, a kind of exercise. Sometimes it's the cause and occasion for awful events. Implicit in most human communication is a duty, responsibility, obligation, to make sense, to the extent that failure is often characterized both negatively and pejoratively, these standing as warning that the speaker cannot be trusted. The question becomes, can bahman be trusted to make sense? What do you say? If yes, please make better sense of your argument.