That a bicycle is a bicycle only when the parts are assembled in the proper way is an example of emergent phenomena.
Or why you just can’t make a human by blending our ingredients together (they must be painstakingly arranged in just the right order for their effect.)
Whole is greater than the sum of parts.
> there’s no evidence for anything novel.
I feel sad for this perspective. There is so much novelty. Every advancement in thought and form brings prior unfathomed yet useful variations (novelty.) maybe the quest to kill mystery makes the author overlook its subtlety?
The whole point of invention, to enable through novel form and application that which without would be IMPOSSIBLE!
This nihilistic banter of electrons and atoms doesn’t reduce why strawberries or bananas taste good, or the magic of folding paper into a perfect airplane, or any application of intellectual technology upon otherwise ordinary materials.
These don’t defy physics, they are the miracle of complexity bringing us infinite variation of novelty.
Is this all supposed to explain away “god” and “magic”?
I think this article is philosophically attempting to fill a hole in someone’s anticipation of what emergent phenomena is doing for us.
“We” “we” “we”, an amusing thing to see an authors unconvincing inclusivity. These topics meander without coherent purpose.
Universe? Emergent behavior is found in every tiny thing. The Universe isn’t a bunch of stuff, it is the potential of all being manifest into state/form in the moment of now. This in itself is ephemeral and indefinitely restructures itself in ways no systemic computation will ever reveal in a useful way.
Explainability and comprehension are not the same thing. It is the difference between reason and reasons. One is just a story you tell yourself.
Ok! I like this thinking...
Still, just for the sake of balanced discussion, while there is no need to invent angels to explain physical phenomena, nor can physicists use lack of evidence for supernatural phenomena as an argument against the existence of the Divine.
> If that’s not your starting point, it’s my duty to inform you that the burden of proof lies with you. You must show that the null hypothesis is insufficient to describe a phenomenon where its predictions are clear, and in conflict with what can be observed and/or measured.
Like consciousness ?
If consciousness is configuration of atoms, then in universe there can be near infinite number of consciousnesses.
Somebody can produce consciousness on another planet. Then you have problem of two consciousnesses. (Or one consciousness on two planets)
Either that or atoms have serial numbers and that will require discovery of new law of physic. So now burden of proof lies with you.
At the risk of the negative karma for entertaining this now exhausting topic…
I believe consciousness is the inflection upon the “substrate” of our minds. This theory suggests all matter is DORMANT consciousness animated by our electro-chemical jelly brains. Consciousness is literally the universe peering back upon itself, animated by living things.
So consciousness is more like electricity (potential of existential being) than a personal “item”, merely subjectively isolated to the local scope of our brains.
Thus there is no reason what you say couldn’t be true, that multiple atoms (animated through biotechnology) may be entangled and share “identity”. I think this is what is happening in our own minds to produce the coherent singularity of personal consciousness.
Further, every atom DOES have serial “numbers”, the extra-dimensional vibration suggested in string theory (whether or not that postulation is complete or wholly accurate). There would be more vibrational combinations than atoms in the universe. Synchronization of these vibrations would explain entanglement (two atoms in different locations sharing the same serial.)
Further further, null hypothesis proof requirements are absurd, you cannot predict or calculate all the ways a piece of paper may be folded let alone how reality may be folded to produce what wonders we perceive. This and that Truth is not confined to the horizon of our ignorance, provability and useful conjecture are not in parity. Otherwise no one would accept theories of … the Big Bang, dark matter/energy, infinite primes infinitely far apart, etc.
That a bicycle is a bicycle only when the parts are assembled in the proper way is an example of emergent phenomena.
Or why you just can’t make a human by blending our ingredients together (they must be painstakingly arranged in just the right order for their effect.)
Whole is greater than the sum of parts.
> there’s no evidence for anything novel.
I feel sad for this perspective. There is so much novelty. Every advancement in thought and form brings prior unfathomed yet useful variations (novelty.) maybe the quest to kill mystery makes the author overlook its subtlety?
The whole point of invention, to enable through novel form and application that which without would be IMPOSSIBLE!
This nihilistic banter of electrons and atoms doesn’t reduce why strawberries or bananas taste good, or the magic of folding paper into a perfect airplane, or any application of intellectual technology upon otherwise ordinary materials.
These don’t defy physics, they are the miracle of complexity bringing us infinite variation of novelty.
Is this all supposed to explain away “god” and “magic”?
I think this article is philosophically attempting to fill a hole in someone’s anticipation of what emergent phenomena is doing for us.
“We” “we” “we”, an amusing thing to see an authors unconvincing inclusivity. These topics meander without coherent purpose.
Universe? Emergent behavior is found in every tiny thing. The Universe isn’t a bunch of stuff, it is the potential of all being manifest into state/form in the moment of now. This in itself is ephemeral and indefinitely restructures itself in ways no systemic computation will ever reveal in a useful way.
Explainability and comprehension are not the same thing. It is the difference between reason and reasons. One is just a story you tell yourself.