I'm making a religion based on Emergence.

[Elder Iptuous]

2. The universe really does reduce to elementary fields. If I use emergence as explanatory, the explanation of everything above elementary fields is "Emergence!" How useful is that really?

well,  it's at least as useful as the explanatory power of those who say, 'cause God made it that way!'.  which is to say, that it gives an ultimate answer to the question that, while not satisfying the desire to understand the more specific mechanisms, doesn't leave the question dangling entirely loose.
that's gotta be worth something...

[Kai]

2. The universe really does reduce to elementary fields. If I use emergence as explanatory, the explanation of everything above elementary fields is "Emergence!" How useful is that really?

well,  it's at least as useful as the explanatory power of those who say, 'cause God made it that way!'.  which is to say, that it gives an ultimate answer to the question that, while not satisfying the desire to understand the more specific mechanisms, doesn't leave the question dangling entirely loose.
that's gotta be worth something...

It's one of those fake explanations, it doesn't really EXPLAIN anything, and the universe isn't any less mysterious or understood after the explanation.

My strength of understanding is based upon how much more I am confused by fiction than reality. If my model of reality (in this case, emergence) can explain any event equally, than I am completely unable to anticipate reality. In other words, I have zero knowledge. The same goes for "god made it that way".

[Elder Iptuous]

true.  it's unsatisfying as a predictive mechanism.
but its more palatable an explanation for the original genesis of stuff and complexity, than some anthropomorphic deity, no?
but i understand what you're saying.
it requires some universal characteristics of how emergence works regardless of the scale and medium that it occurs in, i guess?

[Kai]

true.  it's unsatisfying as a predictive mechanism.
but its more palatable an explanation for the original genesis of stuff and complexity, than some anthropomorphic deity, no?
but i understand what you're saying.
it requires some universal characteristics of how emergence works regardless of the scale and medium that it occurs in, i guess?

Why do we need to posit a fake explanation? Why can't we just say, "I don't know"?

[Elder Iptuous]

well... i guess it's because we have a burning desire to at least label it, and the label almost certainly carries some implications to some degree or another.  or will pick them up by our natural tendency.
if you give it some abstract label like 'emergence', it seems less likely to pick up bad baggage, than 'sky daddy', right?
so it's still better in that sense, i guess.
i mean, it always will be an 'i don't know', for all we know, and we abhor such a thing...

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

true.  it's unsatisfying as a predictive mechanism.
but its more palatable an explanation for the original genesis of stuff and complexity, than some anthropomorphic deity, no?
but i understand what you're saying.
it requires some universal characteristics of how emergence works regardless of the scale and medium that it occurs in, i guess?

Why do we need to posit a fake explanation? Why can't we just say, "I don't know"?

THIS is the correct motorcycle!

well... i guess it's because we have a burning desire to at least label it, and the label almost certainly carries some implications to some degree or another.  or will pick them up by our natural tendency.
if you give it some abstract label like 'emergence', it seems less likely to pick up bad baggage, than 'sky daddy', right?
so it's still better in that sense, i guess.
i mean, it always will be an 'i don't know', for all we know, and we abhor such a thing...

Labels are models/maps and model/maps often lead to bad baggage. See QUANTUMZ! for an example.

[Kai]

true.  it's unsatisfying as a predictive mechanism.
but its more palatable an explanation for the original genesis of stuff and complexity, than some anthropomorphic deity, no?
but i understand what you're saying.
it requires some universal characteristics of how emergence works regardless of the scale and medium that it occurs in, i guess?

Why do we need to posit a fake explanation? Why can't we just say, "I don't know"?

THIS is the correct motorcycle!

well... i guess it's because we have a burning desire to at least label it, and the label almost certainly carries some implications to some degree or another.  or will pick them up by our natural tendency.
if you give it some abstract label like 'emergence', it seems less likely to pick up bad baggage, than 'sky daddy', right?
so it's still better in that sense, i guess.
i mean, it always will be an 'i don't know', for all we know, and we abhor such a thing...

Labels are models/maps and model/maps often lead to bad baggage. See QUANTUMZ! for an example.

I press Worship at the question "Why is there a tendency for elementary fields in interaction to produce categorical nova?"

Otherwise, I press Explain.

[Elder Iptuous]

yeah, but 'i don't know' is a knowledge vacuum, and will be filled with something by somebody.
something abstract and impersonal seems less likely to get the bad baggage.  that's all i'm saying.

even if the notion is benevolent, imagining something personal and all powerful will lead to bad things.
"It's the StayPuft Marshmallow Man...."

So plugging the hole with something more benign seems like a good idea to me....

[Elder Iptuous]

I press Worship at the question "Why is there a tendency for elementary fields in interaction to produce categorical nova?"

Otherwise, I press Explain.

I like that.

[LMNO]

yeah, but 'i don't know' is a knowledge vacuum, and will be filled with something by somebody.
something abstract and impersonal seems less likely to get the bad baggage.  that's all i'm saying.

even if the notion is benevolent, imagining something personal and all powerful will lead to bad things.
"It's the StayPuft Marshmallow Man...."

So plugging the hole with something more benign seems like a good idea to me....

[Kai]

I press Worship at the question "Why is there a tendency for elementary fields in interaction to produce categorical nova?"

Otherwise, I press Explain.

I like that.

You all seriously need to read the Less Wrong sequences.

[Cain]

I press Worship at the question "Why is there a tendency for elementary fields in interaction to produce categorical nova?"

Otherwise, I press Explain.

I like that.

You all seriously need to read the Less Wrong sequences.

This x 100

[Elder Iptuous]

started digging into it.
good stuff.

[Jasper]

I've been reading those lately.  They're very accessible, but not in the way the word is usually meant (doesn't go 'deep').

[minuspace]

"Sometimes the notion of self-organization is conflated with that of the related concept of emergence..."  This is where it really gets interesting, although we would have to agree that the consequences might create some contention?  Do I care?  Yes and no.  On the one hand it seems necessary.  On the other I would prefer to forget?  I do not presume to have it all figured out, nor do I want to produce more interference already, however, I would be remiss to die without making a difference.  Not because I want to make a difference, change the world, shine the light e.t.c. but because one way or the other, this is going to happen soon.  A full system could be developed in two years... (blue-print already exists, just need to funnel it into integrated circuit .  Radical difference cleaved onto continuity is the trick here.  "Mimesis: its not just how you think"