Emergence
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 вер 2016
- Take the full course: bit.ly/SiCourse
Download booklet: bit.ly/SiBooklets
Twitter: bit.ly/2JuNmXX
LinkedIn: bit.ly/2YCP2U6
In this video we will be giving a very high-level overview to the concept of emergence and the different aspects to it that we will be covering in more detail in future modules in the course. The dictionary definition of the term emergence comes from the latin word meaning ‘bring to light’. In this sense it means the process of becoming visible or coming into existence. In its most abstract and metaphorical sense emergence describes the universal process of creation that is both a very fundamental and pervasive feature to our world as it plays out in all types of systems.
Great concept. But let's be honest. There's absolutly NO WAY counsciousness emerged from a shocked gray peace of meat. Yes, It's connected to it somehow, but it was not created by it. And thinking an emerged counsciousness came from evolution is even more stupid, cause meat creating counsciousness is crazy hard (impossible really) and does not make anyone more fit to survive and reproduce. To do that a species only need to act in a more adapted way, it doesnt need to know it's acting like that. It's a hell of a lot evolutionary effort to achieve something evolutionary meaninless and useless.
Yeah, this would mean that what we experience is the universe experiencing itself - literally.
The example of emergence in Physics is not quite correct: general relativity does not emerge (in our current theories) from microscopic quantum behaviour. A better example would be thermodynamics emerging from the motion of particles.
I hate to say this, but Emergence makes no sense if you believe in Materialism. If you cannot reduce an object to the sum of its components, you're positing the existence of something else that you cannot demonstrate or deconstruct, which violates materialism.
Wow. Conscious perception is an emergent phenomenon, which reflexively mirrors the system it relies on.
Is dimensionality or extension an emergent property of the point? Consider: In geometry, they start by telling you the point has no dimension, no extension. But the extension of the point is a line, which has dimensionality. Where did it come from - adding up enough zeroes to get a non-zero? Aside from this being an apparent theoretical problem with Euclidean geometry, I want to know if this would be a candidate for emergent-property-hood.
What we need is a Darwin, Einstein or Newton to revolutionise our understanding of this, somone who will publish a seminal work that push us into a new scientific paradigm.
I am the result of everything. I forgive you.
I think a lot of physicist don't believe in God cause they don't really work with emergent almost unexplainable things. But they work with physical practices. But the two lines always cross.
Incompleteness is no accident, it is ubiquitous. Strong emergency is a manifestation of this fact. Reductionism and its inseparable companion dogmatism are obviously very narrow. Great video, thanks for sharing.
Hands down, one of the top 5 best videos on emergence! The views should be in the millions.
I wish youtube recommended this to me 7 years ago. This would have been awesome to learn about!
Great introduction to emergence presented in a clear and concise way.
Thanks for the videos!!! Very useful for popularization and changing the paradigm!
Thank you for the video.
If we want to get technical, the mass of a human being is not just the summation of its smaller parts. The mass of an individual proton and individual electron is more than the mass of a hydrogen atom because of bonding energy and the relationship between energy and matter. So the mass of a human is probably significantly less than the summation of all its subatomic particles when everything is considered.
Excellent videos as usual. Thanks!
That was really well said!
This is great. But there's a Realist assumption at work in the distinction between epistemological and ontological emergence. The distinction assumes that there is a "real" (so-called "ontological") world "outside" the mind that our epistemological model would fail to account for (or would be unable to account for). This implies that there are our epistemic representations on the one hand, and the "real" ontological world on the other. Hence, my claim to an implicit Realist assumption.
This is the P ≠ NP Problem, no?