Joined: Jan. 2012
|Quote (olegt @ Jan. 23 2014,14:41)|
|Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 23 2014,08:33)|
|But surely still, as a shorthand, 'interaction'? Interactions between atoms and molecules in pure form or solution change with energy distribution, number and the properties of the atoms in any surrounding medium. That there are discrete phase transitions doesn't go against the simplistic notion that collective properties arise from summed complex interactions.|
A bit too simplistic. Surely, if atoms didn't interact then there would not be any solids. Or liquids, for that matter. But just saying "interactions are responsible for rigidity" misses an essential point. Interactions between atoms exist in both liquids and solids. However, solids keep their shapes and liquids do not. The presence of interactions does not explain this key difference. So alluding to interactions is not an explanation.
It's true - it's no more an explanation than 'emergence' is. I merely regard them as approximately synonymous, and it evades the slightly mystical quality that emergence seems to engender.
phoodoo, I'm betting, would waft away any scientific understanding of this or that specific emergent phenomenon because it does not extend to his chosen example - ants, or brain cells. He wants THE scientific explanation for emergence as a phenomenon - everything beyond the naked quark, if such can stand alone. And the fundamental, explains-nothing-by-itself quality of emergent phenomena is that they result from interactions, building onion-like up to and including the level of interest.
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G
BTW, when you make little jabs like â€śI thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,â€ť you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington