Emergence: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|devil|}}{{author|Joe Norman}} with a great example of emergence and irreducibility at [https://open.spotify.com/episode/4iX7DPthz47YdkPB7MWHJG? Risky Conversations]: | {{a|devil|}}{{author|Joe Norman}} with a great example of emergence and irreducibility at [https://open.spotify.com/episode/4iX7DPthz47YdkPB7MWHJG? Risky Conversations]: | ||
If you take a [[Möbius loop]] — a one-sided geometric shape created by taking a strip of paper, twisting it one half turn and looping it — and try to reduce it by breaking it into smaller parts, you lose the one-sidedness. Each of its segments has ''two'' sides. You can join any of its segments together, and they still have | If you take a [[Möbius loop]] — a one-sided geometric shape created by taking a strip of paper, twisting it one half turn and looping it — and try to reduce it by breaking it into smaller parts, you lose the one-sidedness. Each of its segments has ''two'' sides. You can join any of its segments together, and they still have two sides. It is only when you twist the emerging structure and join it back on itself that the second side vanishes. | ||
Nascent theory: [[Reductionism|reducibility]] is to ''irreducibility'' as [[Complication|complicatedness]] is to ''[[complexity]]'' — only looked at from opposite ends of the | Nascent theory: [[Reductionism|reducibility]] is to ''irreducibility'' as [[Complication|complicatedness]] is to ''[[complexity]]'' — only looked at from opposite ends of the telescope. [[Complication]] can be predicted, and solved, from first principles or the [[initial state]]; [[complexity]] cannot. | ||
Likewise, a [[Reductionism|reducible]] phenomenon can be atomised into its fundamental components with no loss of essential qualities or properties; an ''irreducible'' one cannot — some of those properties emerge at a level of abstraction higher than the smallest components. | |||
{{Sa}} | {{Sa}} | ||
*[[Reductionism]] | *[[Reductionism]] | ||
*[[Möbius loop]] — one of the [[JC]]’s [[hermeneutics|hermeneutic]]ally sealed private jokes for one. Oh! There’s another one! | *[[Möbius loop]] — one of the [[JC]]’s [[hermeneutics|hermeneutic]]ally sealed private jokes for one. Oh! There’s another one! | ||
Revision as of 09:11, 21 December 2020
|
|
Joe Norman with a great example of emergence and irreducibility at Risky Conversations:
If you take a Möbius loop — a one-sided geometric shape created by taking a strip of paper, twisting it one half turn and looping it — and try to reduce it by breaking it into smaller parts, you lose the one-sidedness. Each of its segments has two sides. You can join any of its segments together, and they still have two sides. It is only when you twist the emerging structure and join it back on itself that the second side vanishes.
Nascent theory: reducibility is to irreducibility as complicatedness is to complexity — only looked at from opposite ends of the telescope. Complication can be predicted, and solved, from first principles or the initial state; complexity cannot.
Likewise, a reducible phenomenon can be atomised into its fundamental components with no loss of essential qualities or properties; an irreducible one cannot — some of those properties emerge at a level of abstraction higher than the smallest components.
See also
- Reductionism
- Möbius loop — one of the JC’s hermeneutically sealed private jokes for one. Oh! There’s another one!