by aarroyoc on 11/14/23, 9:58 PM with 13 comments
by mjburgess on 11/17/23, 1:38 PM
But (1) this fails to formalise this notion, since we're not talking about two languages 'plucked from thin air' -- they are langauges whose domains are I-terms and W-terms (a metaphysical, not a logical, constraint).
And (2) it's not a useful formalisation of this really either, since the discussion is why, not that (this is taken as a given).
Suppose that weak emergence is true, then the failure of the I-language to express the W-language is an illusion -- rather there's just some very large number of terms involving I that W reduces to.
Suppose strong emergence is true, then no amount of I-terms will express a W-term.
Which of these is the case cannot be settled as a matter of logic, so the construction of two languages (I-lang) and (W-lang) begs the question. If you say emergence is simply W-inexpressible in I, then you're begging the strong view.
(Incidentally, I take the strong view).
by reliablereason on 11/17/23, 9:17 AM
There is nothing that "emerges" in the physical universe, instead things emerge in an observer's model of the world.
by motohagiography on 11/17/23, 2:26 PM