Luke Barnes - What is Strong Emergence?

The world works at different levels — fundamental physics, physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology — with each level having its own rules and regularities. Here’s the deep question: Ultimately, can what happens at a higher level be explained entirely in terms of what happens at a lower level? If the answer is ‘No’, if complete explanatory reduction fails, then what else could be going on?



Luke A. Barnes is a theoretical astrophysicist, cosmologist and postdoctoral researcher at Western Sydney University


Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[Tom_Quixote]

This video completely neglects to explain what strong emergence even is.

[maxpower]

I liked the way he responded. Very humble.

[clownworld-honk]

I get the impression that Robert spends most of his time traveling to glamorous locations around the world asking the big questions. I'm jealous! If he needs a cameraman...

[WildMessages]

What bothers me most about freewill is the subconscious. I have no control over what choices it presents(in the moment) My subconscious is just doing it's best to guess what I might need to know to communicate or figure out the world around me, prevent harm. Freewill is choosing a choice. What the subconscious does seems to be a real gamble

[kallianpublico]

When preparation meets opportunity.
Is this luck, victory, inference, history, deception?
Is opportunity at the heart of emergence? More so than preparation: process?
If opportunity is not a process but a presence then emergence implies free will and a fine tuned universe. If opportunity is a process then emergence is natural, determined and implies fine tuning is an illusion.

Emergence isn't causation. Emergence doesn't mean something is derived from something else that was prior to it: as is causation. Emergence means something new emerged when unexpected conditions were met; unexpected from prior causal experience. In other words emergence is the appearance of new causal processing. New because no prior algorithm could predict the following outcome.

[Yzjoshuwave]

I’m not sure I see any basis for thinking that physics is dealing with fundamental particles, or with foundational laws. What if both are ultimately emergences? How could we ever know we were at the bottom rung? And as far as “laws” are concerned, we might relate to them as functions embedded in a program, but they might hinge on more deeply embedded math-ideas, or the development of a cosmic programming language. I think there’s some sort of information theoretical exploration of language design that might be useful for deconstructing the notion of laws… Not that we can ever get to the bottom of it, but finding deeper structure in the space of variant modes of dealing with ontology seems like a really important aspect of deepening ideas like that of emergence.

[simonhibbs]

We know that even very small changes to the behaviour of a system at the lowest levels, such as how atoms work, completely blow away or rewrite high level behaviours. Chaos theory shows us, via e.g. the butterfly effect, that tiny changes in low level conditions or behaviour can have huge macroscopic effects. How can that be unless high level behaviour is driven by low level details?

[Existentialist]

If brains create consciousness, then free will (which, I would argue we *know* exists) is a strongly emergent phenomenon. Indeed, consciousness itself would also be strongly emergent.

The only alternative is that brains don't create consciousness.

Compatibilism is meaningless *if* we regard determinism as a result of causally efficacious physical forces interacting and playing out. However, "determinism" might also mean what we will inevitably do even though our actions are freely chosen. It's all a bit complex and I've never encountered anyone who understands these issues.

[wisedupearly]

Strong emergence is characterized by its creation of localized environments that differ from the "background" environment.

[RolandHuettmann]

Unfortunately, I do not understand what they are talking about.

[AdamChalmers]

Seems likely that the things experts say are too complex to reduce, are probably too complex for US to reduce (understand from first principles) at this time.

[docnickmacaluso]

Do we really want the truth, or do we only want the comfort of a plausible explanation?

[Lessdeth]

Huge differences between complex and ordered systems; this makes me wonder if Laplace's demon has not reared its Mephistophelian head somewhere in the background. At least it did not turn into a God of the gaps argument.

[markberman]

Not commenting specifically to this gentleman, but just wondering about the pathos that seems to run as an undercurrent to so many discussions; mainly unmentioned and perhaps subconscious fear that things exist that cannot be "mathed" or "sciencied" out. I like the idea of looking through history and people's and going, show me the maths that explains a thousand thousand coincidences? From a purely philosophical prospective one could argue that studying Sherlock Holmes should be required year 1 study for any science or maths person. Why? Because it is stupidly simple to show that there are, in fact, things that cannot be explained. By any maths or science. If that is the case, what does that mean? Claiming that all things can be explained and dominated to relieve the fear of the explainable feels very Icarusy. What is that called, falling on man's oldest sin- hubris?

[jarydf]

I don't believe in strong emergence but I believe weak emergence can be stronger than most people think.

[davenchop]

another discussion of highly technical this and that followed
by the interviewee saying oh by the way i do believe in unicorns,
leprachans and invisible sky daddies...

[alexgonzo]

There is no strong emergence, all emergence is of the "weak" type. The distinction only adds confusion by including external variables such as God in this case unnecessarily. Would anyone think it rational to state that the reason 1 + 2 = 7 is because there is an invisible and special +4 that comes in and adds itself to the result in some mysterious way that we don't understand? Hmm.. sounds interesting but no, we don't need to seek answers outside the box when the ones inside are sufficient. Occam's razor should also be considered in this case.

[theotormon]

Why is it so hard to accept that we don't have free will? It doesn't even really feel like we do if you pay close attention.

[christofeles]

These discussions are so inconsequential. Kuhn needs to narrow the focus. The only connection between science and theism/religion/theology is through philosophical reflection or theory. So invite some philosophers to discuss these matters.

The operative question should be: does the concept of function require a top-down explanatory approach? does the concept of function, as used in life-science, frustrate explanation in reductionist terms, as Stuart Kauffman claims?

[AdamDylanMajor]

I think we are no different than ants or bees when it comes to freedom of choice. We do random stuff when we are alone, but together, our behavior is predictable. Think about it, what do most people do when they meet someone they know? Say hello... I think it says it all about everything that happens next