I believe you are correct..in philosophy. Philosophy is not bound by the regidity of "science" - so, yes I believe you could make a convincing argument in your favor.

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 ? — Pop

Concrete is not a property, it is a material made up of sand, cement, and water. Strength is a property which is relevant to concrete and all three of its component materials.

Semantics. The emergent property of concrete is structural rigidity, which is not present in any of its component materials. But in their relationship emerges a structurally rigid material.

Semantics. The emergent property of concrete is structural rigidity, which is not present in any of its component materials. But in their relationship emerges a structurally rigid material. — Pop

I agree. It is semantics. You have misunderstood the meaning of the word "emergence" in this context.

You have misunderstood the meaning of the word "emergence" in this context. — T Clark

Please enlighten me?

Please enlighten me? — Pop

I've taken my best shot. If what I've written so far hasn't convinced you, let's leave it at that.

I believe you are correct..in philosophy. Philosophy is not bound by the regidity of "science" - so, yes I believe you could make a convincing argument in your favor. — Don Wade

If you happen to think of something let me know. I'm always interested in alternative views.

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

Yes. But, I make a spelling distinction between the causal Energy form (Enformation) and the embodied form (Information). In its raw disembodied form I spell it EnFormAction, to denote the general causal potential of the evolving universe. Technically, ideas (information) in the mind are embodied, even though they can be transferred into the energetic form for artificial transmission between bodies. :nerd:

EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Information :
When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things [physical objects]. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Yes. It's the mind of the artist that imagines the future interrelations that are currently only potential. — Gnomon
This would be G*D? — Pop

Yes. In the Enformationism thesis, I refer to the First Cause Enformer as the "Programmer", "Creator", or "G*D". But, since that "Artist" necessarily exists outside the artwork, S/he cannot be identified with Nature. Anyway, my G*D is just a hypothesis : a figment of my imagination. So, I sometimes refer to the Enformer as "Spinoza's God", which is usually taken to be the physical universe (Nature) itself. However, Spiny's theory was based on the 17th century assumption the world itself was Eternal. Now that we are told by experts that space-time-matter-energy began almost 14 billion years ago, and seems to be headed for a frosty finale in another 14+ billion years, I must assume that the hypothetical First Cause existed prior to the creative act of causation (Big Bang). :cool:

Spinoza's God : In a letter to Henry Oldenburg, Spinoza wrote: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken". For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under infinite attributes, of which we can perceive two: Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

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. — T Clark

You referred to a technical article about "broken symmetry", which may or may not apply to this thread. I didn't login to read the article, so please summarize, in your own words, what "Emergence" means to you? With that information we may be able to communicate with clearer "meanings". I assume the context is Quantum Mechanics, which we have touched-on only briefly, then moved on to other kinds of relationships.

As we are using the term "emergence" here, it does not apply to "all physical and chemical interactions", but only to those physical changes that result in a new kind of thing, with novel properties. Emergence is what identifies a whole system (concrete) as more than the sum of its parts (sand + cement + water). None of the constituent parts has any significant structural rigidity. As you pointed out : "Not every change in characteristics is emergence". Only those that create something new, from something old, But something borrowed or something blue does not count as emergence. :grin:

FYI -- here's my reply to the OP :
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:

Technically, ideas (information) in the mind are embodied, even though they can be transferred into the energetic form for artificial transmission between bodies — Gnomon

Information and energy are always embodied in matter. Even in transit from one mind to another they transmit over matter. I see it as a material universe - even a vacuum is not empty.

I've mentioned to you previously that I've been grappling with information, energy and matter - thinking one might be a quality of the other, but not quite being able to fit it together satisfactorily in terms of qualities. I'm satisfied now that the correct term is relationship - the relationship of information and energy is matter. This fits! I think this is the logical fundamental base - the metaphysics of matter. Its quite a big deal for my analytical reductionist understanding! It is consistent with interrelational evolution, as everything must be.

So, I sometimes refer to the Enformer as "Spinoza's God", which is usually taken to be the physical universe (Nature) itself. — Gnomon

I prefer this understanding myself. :smile:

So, I sometimes refer to the Enformer as "Spinoza's God", which is usually taken to be the physical universe (Nature) itself. — Gnomon

We are creating models that fit observation, so there will be different ways to do it. I do get what you are saying, but I personally tend to think in terms of interrelational evolution creating emergence, where the main thrust is determined with a slight random element creating variation.

The artist never creates exactly what they set out to create. I imagine you, as an architect , would be able to relate to this. There is always the X factor - which is the difference of what one sets out to create, and what one actually creates. Where dose the X come from, or go to? I have no idea, but I feel there is an X factor to all intentional activity. Would you agree?

I've mentioned to you previously that I've been grappling with information, energy and matter - thinking one might be a quality of the other, but not quite being able to fit it together satisfactorily in terms of qualities. I'm satisfied now that the correct term is relationship - the relationship of information and energy is matter. — Pop

Yes, I've noticed that you tend to lean toward Materialism. But my worldview reverses your priority -- matter & energy are transient forms of eternal fundamental Enformation. In my view, matter is merely the container for information. Aristotle's Hylomorphism also placed Form & Matter on the same plane. But Plato's version of "Form" was Logos : a divine principle of order and knowledge. Which is what I call EnFormAction : the power to enform. to fashion, to create. In other words, the eternal potential of Ideality (Enformatiion) must logically be prior to the actual objects of physical reality ( Matter).

Did you notice that in Spinoza's own words, his God (my Enformer) has "attributes that are not present in our world". Hence, his God must exist outside of material reality. He rejected your materialistic God as "mistaken" ("mass of corporeal matter"). Instead, his "eternal universe" is not the one we experience with our physical senses. What he called "Thought" is what I label "Ideality", and his "Extension" is my material Reality. So, my worldview is compatible with Plato & Spinoza, while yours is amenable to Aristotle's. Yet, I don't base my philosophy on ancient authorities, but on modern reasoning. :smile:

Spinoza's God :In a letter to Henry Oldenburg, Spinoza wrote: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken". For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under infinite attributes, of which we can perceive two: Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

Ideality : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

In my view, matter is merely the container for information. — Gnomon

In mine, matter is the container of information and energy - in a relationship. Materialists believe matter to be fundamental, I do not.

So, my worldview is compatible with Plato & Spinoza, while yours is amenable to Aristotle's. Yet, I don't base my philosophy on ancient authorities, but on modern reasoning. :smile: — Gnomon

I was referring to your physical universe statement, not Spinoza specifically. I also prefer modern reasoning.

The artist never creates exactly what they set out to create. I imagine you, as an architect , would be able to relate to this. There is always the X factor - which is the difference of what one sets out to create, and what one actually creates. Where dose the X come from, or go to? I have no idea, but I feel there is an X factor to all intentional activity. Would you agree? — Pop

Yes. In my conjecture, the Artist deliberately encoded an "X factor" into the program of evolution. If evolution was completely determined by the intention of the artist, there would be no room for randomness in the world. And yet, modern science is reconciled to the essential randomness of physics (chaos) and biology (mutations) that are constantly opening new opportunities for novelty.
Hence, they conclude from that lack of determinism that the world could not have been created by an omnipotent God.

My notion of G*D is not biblical, but I see a good reason for including randomness to provide gaps in the chain of causation, allowing novelty to emerge. How else would big-brain humans, with freewill, evolve from single-cell organisms in a deterministic system? Since our world is both orderly & rational and chaotic & irrational, I conclude that the artist used randomness (like spattering paint) in order to achieve a specific effect. Historically, artists have ranged back & forth between Deterministic (realistic) portrayal and Free (impressionistic). So, I see our world as incorporating both, and evolution itself seems to be an open-ended experiment, where the final product is not fore-known. In my architecture, to my chagrin, I never had total control over the final outcome. But it usually worked-out OK. :grin:


Randomness in the Composition of Artwork :
https://tylerxhobbs.com/essays/2014/randomness-in-the-composition-of-artwork

THE ROLE OF RATIONALITY IN ARTISTIC PROCESS : An irrational way of making might involve an artist either knowing or not knowing fully what they want to create, but when making it, embracing the elements of chance, failure and experimentation.
https://www.assemblagemagazine.co.uk/rationality-in-artistic-process

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

In my architecture, to my chagrin, I never had total control over the final outcome. But it usually worked-out OK. :grin: — Gnomon

:up: Same here.

You referred to a technical article about "broken symmetry", which may or may not apply to this thread. I didn't login to read the article, so please summarize, in your own words, what "Emergence" means to you? — Gnomon

Here's a better link to the article:

https://cse-robotics.engr.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72more_is_different.pdf

It discusses how different levels in the hierarchy of science relate to each other. For example, all of biology is consistent with chemistry and physics. That's the reductionist view and is non-controversial. But that doesn't mean you can generate the behavior of biological organisms and the laws of biology from the behavior of non-living matter or the laws of chemistry and physics. Biology emerges out of chemistry and physics.

Information and energy are always embodied in matter. Even in transit from one mind to another they transmit over matter. I see it as a material universe - even a vacuum is not empty. — Pop

True. That's because Materialism is a commonsense view of reality. Information & Energy are invisible and intangible until embodied in some material form. For example Light energy is invisible, but we now know that it causes the "visual purple" chemical in the eye to initiate a chain reaction of physical changes that eventually produce an enformed (meaningful) image in the brain, which we then interpret as a material object out there in the real world. Those phenomena are what we know as reality, because we can only "know" the existence of noumena by rational inference.

Ancient people had no notion of Energy, so they explained its observed effects in terms of Spiritualism. Likewise, an information-based worldview is literally non-sense. It requires the ability to go beyond the senses. The "true" nature of Energy was unknown until Einstein equated it to the Mass --- a mathematical relationship between lightspeed (rate or ratio of change) and the causal energy content of light --- that our brains interpret as Matter. "Mass" literally means "coming together" of causation & form. In his theory of Relativity, Einstein also asserted that all things (physical objects) are relative. The real world is an interconnected network of relationships. Yet, both the connections (links) and the communications are forms of the fundamental universal (spiritual) power of Enformation.

So, the material universe is merely an imaginary image constructed in your brain/mind out of invisible Information. But it's not an illusion, because that pattern of information in your mind is as real as it gets. We cannot even imagine anything immaterial, except by analogy with the physical world. That's why ghosts are described in terms of imaginary substances like Ectoplasm. To understand Enformationism you have to go beyond the range of the physical senses, and use the sixth sense of Reason. Even then, as laymen, we have to accept that our Scientific priests -- who speak the arcane language of Math -- know what they are talking about. In their esoteric math-speak, they tell us that, what commonsense takes to be empty space (vacuum), is full of Potential. But, I have to take it on faith, because I can't see Probability (the future). :nerd:


Spiritualism, in philosophy, a characteristic of any system of thought that affirms the existence of immaterial reality imperceptible to the senses.

Is everything made up of matter? :
https://www.quora.com/Is-everything-made-up-of-matter/answer/Spencer-Kirk-13?ch=99&share=915c2cdd&srid=ozk3M

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Reality is not what you see : In his doctrine of Transcendental Idealism, 18th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant argued that our perception of reality is limited to constructs created in our own minds to represent the invisible and intangible ultimate reality that he mysteriously labeled “ding an sich” [things-in-essence, as opposed to things-as-we-know-them]. In other words, what we think we see, is not absolute reality but our own ideas about reality.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

It discusses how different levels in the hierarchy of science relate to each other. For example, all of biology is consistent with chemistry and physics. That's the reductionist view and is non-controversial. But that doesn't mean you can generate the behavior of biological organisms and the laws of biology from the behavior of non-living matter or the laws of chemistry and physics. Biology emerges out of chemistry and physics. — T Clark

That stuff is way over my head. So, I'm still waiting for your dumbed-down philosophical summary of whatever that scientific jargon has to do with the topic of this thread : "What is the relationship, if any, between emergent properties and quantum mechanics?" Here's a clue : it's not questioning whether "biology emerges out of chemistry and physics". :smile:

True. That's because Materialism is a commonsense view of reality. Information & Energy are invisible and intangible until embodied in some material form — Gnomon

Yes, I knew you would understand it, so didn't bother to spell it out.

"Mass" literally means "coming together" of causation & form. In his theory of Relativity, Einstein also asserted that all things (physical objects) are relative. The real world is an interconnected network of relationships. Yet, both the connections (links) and the communications are forms of the fundamental universal (spiritual) power of Enformation. — Gnomon

Yes, I have always agreed with Enformation, with energy, information and matter being in a relationship, but couldn't quite articulate the relationship at the most fundamental level. Fundamentally nothing exists on its own, something can only exist relative to something else - hence the relationship of energy and information = matter. Its the only way it fits together, and it is consistent with interrelational evolution, which is consistent with the best understandings - Einstein, Darwin, etc ( even Glattfelder concludes with structural realism and its relational understanding ).

Normally matter is understood as information + matter/energy, but this is too messy for my liking. Logically it sits most fundamentally as the relationship of energy and information = matter The fundamental elements are energy, information, and relationship - permutations of these create matter, and all that exists is just endless permutations of the relationship of information and energy as matter - growing in complexity unto human consciousness!

I think this is consistent with your Enformation understanding.

Spiritualism, in philosophy, a characteristic of any system of thought that affirms the existence of immaterial reality imperceptible to the senses. — Gnomon

My philosophy is most closely aligned with idealism, so, for me, attributing extra information to sense mediated perception is just a normal part of constructivist cognition. Spiritualism suggests an immaterial element, whereas I see a monist universe full of materials - no room left for the immaterial. :smile: But I understand what you mean.

Yes, I have always agreed with Enformation, with energy, information and matter being in a relationship, — Pop

Ironically, one problem with using "relationship" to define Information, is that a Google search almost always returns a long list of human relationship advice. Which is why I try to use more abstract terms like "ratio" or "pattern" or "form" or "Logos". One definition of "pattern" is :to give a regular or intelligible form to things. That's also similar to the definition of "geometry" : the shape and relative arrangement of the parts of something. So, I tend to think of "Enformation" as a process of re-arranging the geometric patterns of objects in the world. An enformed thing is essentially a meaningful pattern of both geometric and logical relationships.

Unfortunately, defining Ultimate Ideal Information as abstract (immaterial), geometric (measurable) or logical (meaningful) relationships is accurate, but even those terms carry some ancient metaphysical baggage, ascribing religious or sacred significance to mere angular ratios. Which implies that God has set-apart certain patterns & relationships as holy or consecrated or taboo. And, apart from specific religious traditions, I have no reason to think that anything in this world is off-limits to the inquiring mind. Likewise, defining two people or things as being "in a relationship" often implies a sacred emotional connection or bond. Which in the real world is, sadly, seldom actually inviolable.

So, it's hard to find words to describe information patterns & relationships, without getting entangled with gods & taboos & sentiment & magic. But I keep trying to find words to describe Enformationism, that don't remind people of specific religious & mystical traditions, when I'm trying to formulate a secular scientific paradigm. :worry:

Metaphysical Geometry :
Thus, we believe and we can show that metaphysical truths, which are entirely independent of the concepts of god, creation, divine, etc. but are at the same time the very source and ground of all these concepts and realities, is best conveyed through geometry.
https://tomajjavidtash.com/2016/03/13/metaphysics-geometry/

Sacred geometry : Sacred geometry ascribes symbolic and sacred meanings to certain geometric shapes and certain geometric proportions.[1] It is associated with the belief that a god is the geometer of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_geometry

LOGOS : the principle of reason
Logic : pattern recognition

My philosophy is most closely aligned with idealism, so, for me, attributing extra information to sense mediated perception is just a normal part of constructivist cognition. Spiritualism suggests an immaterial element, whereas I see a monist universe full of materials - no room left for the immaterial. — Pop

For me, Information can be both Ideal & immaterial and concrete & material. As a Platonic Ideal Form, the power of Enformation is timeless & spaceless. But, as a Material Real form, the energy of EnFormAction is bound by space & time. It's difficult to convey that dualistic Monism, but the BothAnd principle is my attempt to do so. Enformation is both material and immaterial. :smile:

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Note -- I use the term "Spiritualism" to indicate the primitive understanding of EnFormAction flowing in the world, enforming things and communicating ideas. Their "Spirit" (animating breath) is what we now know as "Energy" (causal force), and what I call the process of enforming (changing from one form to another). Sometimes the form changes, via evolutionary steps, from inert to living matter.

"What is the relationship, if any, between emergent properties and quantum mechanics?" Here's a clue : it's not questioning whether "biology emerges out of chemistry and physics". — Gnomon

Here's what I wrote in my first post in this thread:

Emergence and quantum mechanics describe different kinds of phenomena. — T Clark

That's a bit vague because I didn't want to come out and say that the two are not related at all. Some QM properties are emergent, some emergent properties are QM, but there is no direct relationship between them. Perhaps someone will correct me if I've misunderstood something.

I sent you the link to the emergence article because your question indicated to me you don't understand what emergence is. I got whatever grasp of the issue I have from this article.

I sent you the link to the emergence article because your question indicated to me you don't understand what emergence is. I got whatever grasp of the issue I have from this article. — T Clark

Since I'm not likely to read that highly technical article, I was hoping you would be able to define "Emergence" in your own words. That would show that you actually have a "grasp" of the concept, as it applies to Quantum Mechanics. I suspect that your understanding may be a Reductionist (individualist) version of the sudden "coming into view" (appearance) of something that was hidden. And that might be compatible with a general dictionary definition.

But my definition of "Emergence" is Holistic, in the sense of something with novel properties or qualities "coming into being". It is also a defining feature of complex systems, including Quantum Entanglement. So that's why I think there is indeed a relationship between quantum mechanics and the phenomenon of Emergence. :smile:

Emergence :
1. the process of coming into view or becoming exposed after being concealed.
2. the process of coming into being, or of becoming important or prominent.
___Oxford Dictionary
3. Evolution. the appearance of new properties or species in the course of development or evolution.

Holism, Emergence, and the Crucial Distinction :
One issue of dispute between methodological individualists and methodological holists is whether holist explanations are dispensable in the sense that individualist explanations are able to do their explanatory job.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-05344-8_10

Emergence :
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. Emergence plays a central role in theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Defining 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

Strong Emergence Is Holism, Not Magic :
Strong emergence doesn't hold that high-level or irreducible properties arise spontaneously or inexplicably from aggregates, as if by magic. Instead, strong emergence is a type of holism in which complex aggregates are seen as more than mere aggregates from the start
https://www.zacharyfruhling.com/philosophy-blog/strong-emergence-is-holism-not-magic

Since I'm not likely to read that highly technical article, — Gnomon

You want to intelligently discuss a technical subject, but you don't want to read a technical paper. Instead, you'd rather continue using the word "emergence" incorrectly. That doesn't make any sense. The article is not "highly technical" and it's not difficult.