Strong emergence thus apparently amounts to an indefensible variety of ontological dualism." — Pierre-Normand
I am not sure how a discussion about emergentism is relevant to fundamental laws of nature. As I have stated before I have no problem with a secondary (emergent) law like ‘every snowflake is 6-sided’, as a direct consequence of fundamental laws. — Querius
I would have thought 'the placebo effect' provides a cogent example of top-down causation. — Wayfarer
I take it that you are not attempting to explain fundamental laws with emergence. As such the topic emergentism is irrelevant to our discussion. — Querius
Correct me if I am wrong, but does the very concept of 'emergence' not imply a lower level of (more) fundamental laws? Emergent stuff emerge from fundamental stuff, right?What makes you think that some laws are fundamental and some aren't? — Pierre-Normand
Also every post on this forum is a cogent example of top-down causation. Question is, do we find such causation in inanimate nature. — Querius
Correct me if I am wrong, but does the very concept of 'emergence' not imply a lower level of (more) fundamental laws? Emergent stuff emerge from fundamental stuff, right? — Querius
Unless you are arguing that it is emergence all the way down, which seems incompatible with the concept of emergence, I do not see the relevance to a discussion about fundamental laws.
EDIT: Emergence does not explain the level on which it sits. — Querius
Bitbol's paper is titled "...without Foundations". … There need not be an ultimate level at the bottom, and strong emergence allows us to dispense with the need for one. Yes, in a sense, it's emergence all the way... But there need not be a bottom, fundamental, level. — Pierre-Normand
Emergence from nothing it is.
There are those who demand understanding and those who do not. — Querius
However, if you are correct, it is the claim that there is not necessarily something at the bottom.It is not a claim that there is something at the bottom that we must not seek an explanation of. — Pierre-Normand
Sean Carroll objects to the notion of downward causation because he doesn't understand it. He wrongly believes the possibility of downward causation to contradict the causal closure of the micro-physical domain, as if a macroscopic or systemic cause of a micro-physical event entailed a violation of the laws that govern micro-physical interactions. But downward causation doesn't have this consequence. It isn't something queer, magical, or unphysical. — Pierre-Normand
I would have thought 'the placebo effect' provides a cogent example of top-down causation. — Wayfarer
I agree. Also every post on this forum is a cogent example of top-down causation. Question is, do we find such causation in inanimate nature. — Querius
This is a gross mischaracterization of the position of the non-reductivist/emergentist/pluralist. What is denied is a unique "fundamental" material explanation of "everything" — Pierre-Normand
However, if you are correct, it is the claim that there is not necessarily something at the bottom.
Unless one argues that there is something up there and/or sideways, then what we have is 'emergence from nothing'. — Querius
This is an attempt to get a coherent concept of the laws of nature. What are they? What are they made of? How do they work? — Querius
The main thing to keep in mind when pondering such questions is that physical laws are not features of the universe (nor are fermions, bosons, etc.). They are features of the conceptual apparatus we've invented to explain the universe. — GE Morton
So, you think that electrons (a fermion) and photons (a boson) don't exist? Rather they are merely part of a "conceptual apparatus"? — tom
There are many examples in physics. George Ellis (responding to Sean Carroll) provides an example in the comment section of this post on emergence by Massimo Pigliucci: — Pierre-Normand
An excellent argument in favor of the fundamental irreducible nature of laws, which, as far as I can see, no one has attempted to address.... a realist would say that a "law of nature" is a real tendency or habit that governs actual things and events, but is not reducible to them. If a law is merely a description, then there is no good reason to think that it would apply to future behavior, since different things and events are involved; yet we make successful predictions all the time, not just in science, but in everyday living. — Aletheist
This reminds me of the famous 1948 Copleston vs. Russell debate on the existence of God. At one point Russell counters Copleston's argument from contingency by saying:"It just is" is perhaps even more mysterious than "something else made it this way", but it tries to pretend to be anti-mysterious and obvious to escape any worrysome metaphysical issues that arise when people start thinking. — darthbarracuda
I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all.
Correct me if I am wrong, but does the very concept of 'emergence' not imply a lower level of (more) fundamental laws? Emergent stuff emerge from fundamental stuff, right?
Unless you are arguing that it is emergence all the way down, which seems incompatible with the concept of emergence, I do not see the relevance to a discussion about fundamental laws. — Querius
And Peirce called our existing universe God's argument, a symbol whose object is Himself and whose interpretant consists of the living realities that it is constantly working out as its conclusions. — aletheist
Existence begins not with nothing but instead an "everythingness" - a "state" of unbounded potential. And then limitations develop to produce definite somethingness. ...
Complexity and particularity arises as the general … becomes more constrained in specific ways. History locks in its own future by removing certain possibilities as things that could actually happen. And the future is then woven from what was thus left open as a possibility. — Apokrisis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.