The Age of Emergence, and the Eclipse of Reductionism!

[Jonathan]

"Much as I dislike the idea of ages, I think a good case can
be made that science has now moved from an Age of Reductionism
to an Age of Emergence, a time when the search for ultimate
causes of things shifts from the behavior of parts to the
behavior of the collective. It is difficult to identify a
specific moment when this transition occurred because it
was gradual and somewhat obscured by the pretense of myths,
but there can be no doubt that the dominant paradigm now
is organizational.

That is why, for example, electrical engineering students
are no longer required to learn the laws of electricity –
which are very elegant and enlightening but irrelevant
to programming computers. It is why stem cells are in the
news but enzymatic functionalities are confined to the
fine print on boxes of soap. It is why movies about
Marie Curie and Lord Rutherford are out while Jurassic Park
and Twister are in. The protagonists in these newer movies
are not concerned with the microscopic causes but with
capricious organizational phenomena – as in, “Arrrggghhh!
It’s coming right for us!”

Ironically, the very success of reductionism has helped
pave the way for its eclipse. Over time, careful quantitative
study of microscopic parts has revealed that at the primitive
level at least, collective principles of organization are not
just a quaint side show but everything – the true source of
physical law, including perhaps the most fundamental laws we know.

The precision of our measurements enables us to confidently
declare the search for a single ultimate truth to have ended –
but at the same time to have failed, since nature is now
revealed to be an enormous tower of truths, each descending
from its parent, and then transcending that parent, as the
scale of measurement increases. Like Columbus or Marco Polo,
we set out to explore a new country but instead discovered
a new world.

The Transition to the Age of Emergence brings to an end the
myth of the absolute power of mathematics. This myth is
still entrenched in our culture, unfortunately, a fact
revealed routinely in the press and popular publications
promoting the search for ultimate laws as the only scientific
activity worth pursuing, notwithstanding massive and
overwhelming experimental evidence that exactly the opposite
is the case. We can refute the reductionist myth by demonstrating
that rules are correct and then challenging very smart people
to predict things with them. Their inability to do so is similar
to the difficulty the Wizard of Oz has in returning Dorothy to
Kansas. He can do it in principle, but there are a few pesky
details to be worked out. One must be satisfied in the interim
with empty testimonials and exhortations to pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain. The real problem is that Oz is
a different universe from Kansas and that getting from one to
the other makes no sense. The myth of collective behavior
following law is, as a practical matter, exactly backward.
Law instead follows from collective behavior, as do things
that flow from it, such as logic and mathematics.

The reason our minds can anticipate and master what the physical
world does is not because we are geniuses but because nature
facilitates understanding by organizing itself and generating law."





s

[jonathan]

A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down

By Robert B. Laughlin

Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Stanford
University

Awards

E. O. Lawrence Award for Physics - 1985
Oliver E. Buckley Prize - 1986
National Academy of Sciences - 1994
Benjamin Franklin Medal for Physics - 1998
Nobel Prize in Physics - 1998
Academy of Achievement's Golden Plate Award - 1999
Doctorate of Letters, University of Maryland - 2005
Onsager Medal - 2007


Laughlin published a book entitled A Different Universe:
Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down in 2005.

The book argues for emergence as a replacement for
reductionism,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Laughlin



s




>
>
> s
>

[Rolf]

"jonathan" <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Za6dnQH-SK0RXdrK...@giganews.com...

> On 5/26/2016 7:15 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Much as I dislike the idea of ages, I think a good case can
>> be made that science has now moved from an Age of Reductionism
>> to an Age of Emergence, a time when the search for ultimate
>> causes of things shifts from the behavior of parts to the
>> behavior of the collective. It is difficult to identify a
>> specific moment when this transition occurred because it
>> was gradual and somewhat obscured by the pretense of myths,
>> but there can be no doubt that the dominant paradigm now
>> is organizational.
>>
>> That is why, for example, electrical engineering students

>> are no longer required to learn the laws of electricity -

>> which are very elegant and enlightening but irrelevant
>> to programming computers. It is why stem cells are in the
>> news but enzymatic functionalities are confined to the
>> fine print on boxes of soap. It is why movies about
>> Marie Curie and Lord Rutherford are out while Jurassic Park
>> and Twister are in. The protagonists in these newer movies
>> are not concerned with the microscopic causes but with

>> capricious organizational phenomena - as in, "Arrrggghhh!

>> It's coming right for us!"
>>
>> Ironically, the very success of reductionism has helped
>> pave the way for its eclipse. Over time, careful quantitative
>> study of microscopic parts has revealed that at the primitive
>> level at least, collective principles of organization are not

>> just a quaint side show but everything - the true source of

>> physical law, including perhaps the most fundamental laws we know.
>>
>> The precision of our measurements enables us to confidently

>> declare the search for a single ultimate truth to have ended -

I read the PP first and was surprised it was not made clear it was a quote.

I have mentioned Laughlin's book several times here at t.o. but his subject
doesn't seem to be of much interest to the audience.
But that figures, science is not a creationists cup of tea.

Laughlin is of course no evolution denier but he kicks the butt of
evolutionists anyway and I think there are reasons for that.

I don't think reductionism is dead, it has some advantages in simplifying
matters but in the end we have to acknowledge the importance of emergence to
explain and understand the world.

Unless you are a creationist, you can live happily with a reductionist view
of nature. But creationists need to learn the fundamental facts. They may
seem exotic and complicated but that's the way it is, there's nothing we can
do about it.

I like the subtitle "Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down".The so-called
"Laws of Nature" seems not to be something fundamental or created by God,
they are more like a product of self-organisation in nature. Atoms by
themselves are quantum mechanical objects, it is only after assembling into
larger objects that they obey Newtonian law.

Or something like that.

One should read the book, it is diffiicult to explain what Laughlin is so
good at explaining.
From the comments at Amazon I see that opinion about Laughlin differs but he
didn't get a Nobel for nothing...

[joecummings082...@serv1.ams1.giganews.com]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 19:15:06 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>"Much as I dislike the idea of ages, I think a good case can
>be made that science has now moved from an Age of Reductionism
>to an Age of Emergence, a time when the search for ultimate
>causes of things shifts from the behavior of parts to the
>behavior of the collective. It is difficult to identify a
>specific moment when this transition occurred because it
>was gradual and somewhat obscured by the pretense of myths,
>but there can be no doubt that the dominant paradigm now
>is organizational.
>
>That is why, for example, electrical engineering students
>are no longer required to learn the laws of electricity –
>which are very elegant and enlightening but irrelevant
>to programming computers.

Are you saying that electrical engineering students do not have to
know

V =IR?????

This is interesting. I'd like a response.







Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[Earle Jones27]

On 2016-05-27 18:37:38 +0000,

joecummings082...@serv1.ams1.giganews.com said:

> On Thu, 26 May 2016 19:15:06 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Much as I dislike the idea of ages, I think a good case can
>> be made that science has now moved from an Age of Reductionism
>> to an Age of Emergence, a time when the search for ultimate
>> causes of things shifts from the behavior of parts to the
>> behavior of the collective. It is difficult to identify a
>> specific moment when this transition occurred because it
>> was gradual and somewhat obscured by the pretense of myths,
>> but there can be no doubt that the dominant paradigm now
>> is organizational.
>>
>> That is why, for example, electrical engineering students
>> are no longer required to learn the laws of electricity –
>> which are very elegant and enlightening but irrelevant
>> to programming computers.

*
Who in hell would hire an Electrical Engineer to program a computer?

earle (EE, Georgia Tech and Stanford)
*

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 19:15:06 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan
<writeI...@gmail.com>:

>...electrical engineering students

>are no longer required to learn the laws of electricity –
>which are very elegant and enlightening but irrelevant
>to programming computers.

Whoever came up with this howler needs a short course in the
difference between EE and CS. Plus a re-reading of the
typical EE course load.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 15:00:19 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Earle Jones27
<earle...@comcast.net>:

Jonathan, obviously. "Nuff said?

>earle (EE, Georgia Tech and Stanford)

Mine was Johns Hopkins, Whiting School of Engineering.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 20:37:38 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by
joecummings082...@serv1.ams1.giganews.com:

>On Thu, 26 May 2016 19:15:06 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Much as I dislike the idea of ages, I think a good case can
>>be made that science has now moved from an Age of Reductionism
>>to an Age of Emergence, a time when the search for ultimate
>>causes of things shifts from the behavior of parts to the
>>behavior of the collective. It is difficult to identify a
>>specific moment when this transition occurred because it
>>was gradual and somewhat obscured by the pretense of myths,
>>but there can be no doubt that the dominant paradigm now
>>is organizational.
>>
>>That is why, for example, electrical engineering students
>>are no longer required to learn the laws of electricity –
>>which are very elegant and enlightening but irrelevant
>>to programming computers.
>
>Are you saying that electrical engineering students do not have to
>know
>
>V =IR?????

Not to mention everything needed to *design* a computer.

>This is interesting. I'd like a response.

You've heard of Bonehead English, and physics for Eng. Lit.
majors? This must be the equivalent in some curriculum.

[Jonathan]

I didn't realize what the author's credentials were at first.

But I firmly believe words should stand on their own merits, I hate
appealing to authority. But most people want to look at the
source first, in their reductionist habit.

> I have mentioned Laughlin's book several times here at t.o. but his subject
> doesn't seem to be of much interest to the audience.
> But that figures, science is not a creationists cup of tea.

I'm so glad to finally hear an authoritative source
say it, that..."emergence is everything".

Also that fundamental laws are irrelevant.
In an coevolutionary view, and the entire
universe evolves, every ecosystem or niche
will generate their own unique laws and rules
as it goes.

>
> Laughlin is of course no evolution denier but he kicks the butt of
> evolutionists anyway and I think there are reasons for that.
>
> I don't think reductionism is dead, it has some advantages in simplifying
> matters but in the end we have to acknowledge the importance of emergence to
> explain and understand the world.
>

I don't think reductionism is dead either, it has an
equally important role. Complexity requires both
the static and chaotic behaviors, or in general form
requires the qualitative (not quantitative) opposites
in possible behavior to be critically interacting
with each other.

So reductionism and emergence would be those opposites
for observing reality. It's just that one has to realize
the new way means emergence comes...first, in order to
understand the parts. Emergence puts reductionism
in it's correct place.

In that the output or effects provide the theoretical
foundation, the laws and rules, for the system at hand.
THEN the reductionist tools all come into the picture
when...applying that knowledge to a specific system
or problem.

Which is why I insist when anyone starts the problem
solving method by detailing the 'facts' of the system
they are...lost.

It should be easy to see, that just as when we watch
an airplane fly overhead, we can make all kinds
of assumptions concerning it's parts.

The same is true that once we observe emergent properties
we can make all kinds of assumptions about the parts.
For starters, in a critically interacting system
the parts will behave chaotically, and no ultimate
reduction will be possible. The infamous irreducible
complexity will always exist in critically interacting
systems just as in the duality of light.

You can't separate the critically interacting opposites
from each other without instantly losing the emergent
behavior.

So why even try to start by quantifying the parts in
typical reductionist fashion in an...evolving system?

> Unless you are a creationist, you can live happily with a reductionist view
> of nature. But creationists need to learn the fundamental facts. They may
> seem exotic and complicated but that's the way it is, there's nothing we can
> do about it.
>
> I like the subtitle "Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down".The so-called
> "Laws of Nature" seems not to be something fundamental or created by God,
> they are more like a product of self-organisation in nature. Atoms by
> themselves are quantum mechanical objects, it is only after assembling into
> larger objects that they obey Newtonian law.
>
> Or something like that.
>
> One should read the book, it is diffiicult to explain what Laughlin is so
> good at explaining.

This weekend I'm going look for some more excerpts from the book
as you say that passage was very well written.

[Jonathan]

On 5/27/2016 8:07 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2016 15:00:19 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Earle Jones27
> <earle...@comcast.net>:
>
>> On 2016-05-27 18:37:38 +0000,
>> joecummings082...@serv1.ams1.giganews.com said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 May 2016 19:15:06 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Much as I dislike the idea of ages, I think a good case can
>>>> be made that science has now moved from an Age of Reductionism
>>>> to an Age of Emergence, a time when the search for ultimate
>>>> causes of things shifts from the behavior of parts to the
>>>> behavior of the collective. It is difficult to identify a
>>>> specific moment when this transition occurred because it
>>>> was gradual and somewhat obscured by the pretense of myths,
>>>> but there can be no doubt that the dominant paradigm now
>>>> is organizational.
>>>>
>>>> That is why, for example, electrical engineering students
>>>> are no longer required to learn the laws of electricity –
>>>> which are very elegant and enlightening but irrelevant
>>>> to programming computers.
>>
>> *
>> Who in hell would hire an Electrical Engineer to program a computer?
>
> Jonathan, obviously. "Nuff said?
>

The quote was from a physics prof that won a Nobel prize
for physics.

>> earle (EE, Georgia Tech and Stanford)
>
> Mine was Johns Hopkins, Whiting School of Engineering.
>

Michigan State University, Dept of Mathematics
....go Spartans!~



s

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 21:08:23 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

But you quoted it without comment. Did you agree with his claim? Do
you now?


Joe Cummings

[Jonathan]

Do you believe the laws of electricity are important
for programmers? I think that was his point, which is
that fundamental laws are not relevant to emergent
sciences such as programming. Not so much that all
ee majors are programmers, that sentence seems
a bit clumsy in that respect.

Although these days many university engineering colleges
are called 'engineering and computer science' colleges.
https://www.google.com/#q=college+of+engineering+and+computer+science

From the same author...


"Thus the tendency of nature to form a hierarchical society
of physical laws is much more than an academic debating point.
It is why the world is knowable. It renders the most
fundamental laws, whatever they are, irrelevant and protects us
from being tyrannized by them. It is the reason we can live
without understanding the ultimate secrets of the universe.
— R. B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics
from the Bottom Down , p. 8.

https://bioperipatetic.com/about/epigenetics-and-environmental-ethics-iv-did-aristotle-and-aquinas-discover-dna/#comment-212






>
> Joe Cummings
>

[Jonathan]

On 5/27/2016 2:37 PM,

joecummings082...@serv1.ams1.giganews.com wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2016 19:15:06 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Much as I dislike the idea of ages, I think a good case can
>> be made that science has now moved from an Age of Reductionism
>> to an Age of Emergence, a time when the search for ultimate
>> causes of things shifts from the behavior of parts to the
>> behavior of the collective. It is difficult to identify a
>> specific moment when this transition occurred because it
>> was gradual and somewhat obscured by the pretense of myths,
>> but there can be no doubt that the dominant paradigm now
>> is organizational.
>>
>> That is why, for example, electrical engineering students
>> are no longer required to learn the laws of electricity –
>> which are very elegant and enlightening but irrelevant
>> to programming computers.
>
> Are you saying that electrical engineering students do not have to
> know
>
> V =IR?????
>
> This is interesting. I'd like a response.
>
>

Your reply shows typical reductionist mindsets.
Instead of replying to the concept being discussed
reductionists will choose to nit-pick the finer
details.

His quote was about the general relationship
between fundamental laws and emergent properties.

Not about the relationship between ee majors
and programmers, that appears to me to be
an analogy, clumsy perhaps, but his point
still holds.

Besides, I learned those laws in freshman
physics, before majors are usually declared.
So why would an ee major be required to
retake freshman physics?

[Öö Tiib]

Somewhat important. World is lot of middle shades. You ask for a
measure on such scale (scale from "is not relevant" to "is absolutely
necessary") above and assume some answer to it and then make odd conclusion
from it below.

Programmer can indeed be useful in industry, to document or test something
or to learn to make some web pages without knowing much about laws of electronics and communications. In my experience however lot of best
programmers have background in electrical engineering or in physics.

> I think that was his point, which is
> that fundamental laws are not relevant to emergent
> sciences such as programming.

For analogy: Is theory of gravity important for a person to jump over
a ditch or not? Not much. A person does typically learn to do it good
enough by trying various jumps, having successes and so training his
muscles and reflexes. Does it follow that fundamental laws are therefore
totally not relevant for jumping? Those are still relevant; athletes can
use computer simulations to perfect their jumping.

> Not so much that all ee majors are programmers, that sentence seems
> a bit clumsy in that respect.
>
> Although these days many university engineering colleges
> are called 'engineering and computer science' colleges.
> https://www.google.com/#q=college+of+engineering+and+computer+science

Yes, schools call themselves in whatever way to attract more students.

>
> From the same author...
>
>
> "Thus the tendency of nature to form a hierarchical society
> of physical laws is much more than an academic debating point.
> It is why the world is knowable. It renders the most
> fundamental laws, whatever they are, irrelevant and protects us
> from being tyrannized by them. It is the reason we can live
> without understanding the ultimate secrets of the universe.
> — R. B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics
> from the Bottom Down , p. 8.
>
> https://bioperipatetic.com/about/epigenetics-and-environmental-ethics-iv-did-aristotle-and-aquinas-discover-dna/#comment-212

Again failure of explaining how you understand what he wrote and what
you think about it results with people around you imagining various
extremely absurd nonsense. ;)

[Jonathan]

I think his point is that coevolutionary systems create
their own fundamental laws. Each ecosystem has their
own internal relationships that can overwhelm or are
largely independent of the universal constants.

Not a complete slave to the basic laws.

The emergent laws define they system /more so/ than
the universal laws.

For things like the sun or gravity, evolving systems
can carve our their own 'mini universes' whether
in a cave or in orbit.

>> Not so much that all ee majors are programmers, that sentence seems
>> a bit clumsy in that respect.
>>
>> Although these days many university engineering colleges
>> are called 'engineering and computer science' colleges.
>> https://www.google.com/#q=college+of+engineering+and+computer+science
>
> Yes, schools call themselves in whatever way to attract more students.
>

Right but software engineering is quickly overwhelming
computer hardware engineering in terms of jobs.

>>
>> From the same author...
>>
>>
>> "Thus the tendency of nature to form a hierarchical society
>> of physical laws is much more than an academic debating point.
>> It is why the world is knowable. It renders the most
>> fundamental laws, whatever they are, irrelevant and protects us
>> from being tyrannized by them. It is the reason we can live
>> without understanding the ultimate secrets of the universe.
>> — R. B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics
>> from the Bottom Down , p. 8.
>>
>> https://bioperipatetic.com/about/epigenetics-and-environmental-ethics-iv-did-aristotle-and-aquinas-discover-dna/#comment-212
>
> Again failure of explaining how you understand what he wrote and what
> you think about it results with people around you imagining various
> extremely absurd nonsense. ;)
>

The concept of emergence isn't easy, it's essentially
trying to establish a general theory of all the
so-called soft or subjective sciences typically
considered 'more art than science'.

To have a general theory for things like the
humanities, arts, psychology and politics to name
just a few is quite an amazing advance.

Perhaps the largest single scientific advance ever.
Even Newton, Galileo or Einstein paled in comparison
in terms of potential scope.

As emergence spans all the disciplines at once
even gravity, cosmology and space-time.




s

[jillery]

On Sat, 28 May 2016 03:30:14 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

Correct. Programming, aka computer programming, is merely a technical
skill. Without additional knowledge of other fields, programming is
little more than a secretarial skill.

My impression is it's easier and more productive to teach programming
skills to engineers and scientists, than to teach engineering and
science to programming technicians.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rp0jkb19m2fau2o5b...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 May 2016 03:30:14 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, 28 May 2016 12:09:49 UTC+3, Jonathan wrote:
>>> On 5/28/2016 3:25 AM, joecummin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> > On Fri, 27 May 2016 21:08:23 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On 5/27/2016 8:07 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> >>> On Fri, 27 May 2016 15:00:19 -0700, the following appeared
>>> >>> in talk.origins, posted by Earle Jones27
>>> >>> <earle...@comcast.net>:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> On 2016-05-27 18:37:38 +0000,
>>> >>>> joecummings082...@serv1.ams1.giganews.com said:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> On Thu, 26 May 2016 19:15:06 -0400, Jonathan
>>> >>>>> <writeI...@gmail.com>
>>> >>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> "Much as I dislike the idea of ages, I think a good case can
>>> >>>>>> be made that science has now moved from an Age of Reductionism
>>> >>>>>> to an Age of Emergence, a time when the search for ultimate
>>> >>>>>> causes of things shifts from the behavior of parts to the
>>> >>>>>> behavior of the collective. It is difficult to identify a
>>> >>>>>> specific moment when this transition occurred because it
>>> >>>>>> was gradual and somewhat obscured by the pretense of myths,
>>> >>>>>> but there can be no doubt that the dominant paradigm now
>>> >>>>>> is organizational.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> That is why, for example, electrical engineering students

>>> >>>>>> are no longer required to learn the laws of electricity -

>>> - R. B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics

>>> from the Bottom Down , p. 8.
>>>
>>> https://bioperipatetic.com/about/epigenetics-and-environmental-ethics-iv-did-aristotle-and-aquinas-discover-dna/#comment-212
>>
>>Again failure of explaining how you understand what he wrote and what
>>you think about it results with people around you imagining various
>>extremely absurd nonsense. ;)
>
>
> Correct. Programming, aka computer programming, is merely a technical
> skill. Without additional knowledge of other fields, programming is
> little more than a secretarial skill.
>
> My impression is it's easier and more productive to teach programming
> skills to engineers and scientists, than to teach engineering and
> science to programming technicians.
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.
>

Indeed. I have a mixed background but much of it was tecnhical. During the
years I worked with programming, the programmers I met didn't seem more
interested in engineering and science than people in general.

[rno...@umich.edu]

Laughlin is an important source of serious information about emergence. Jonathan does, occasionally, hit on good stuff. However jonathan still does not consider context and subtleties and interpretation.

Laughlin is a physicist and what he writes about the "absolute power of mathematics" and extreme reductionism which is the unfortunately view of far too many physicists. His nonsense about Ohm's Law represents his ignorance of what almost all EE's really do, as opposed to computer scientists who happen to study in an engineering college. Certainly he would never argue that condensed matter physicists should ignore quantum mechanics!

Biology has long been ridiculed by physicists because biology has never been riddled with the canard or the "power of mathematics" or total reductionism. We biologists have know for a century or more about "levels of organization", each of which has its own type of components (actors or agents, if you wish) and behaviors. Biology does not reduce to physics any more than ecosystems are explained by cellular activity. Nevertheless, the only mechanisms that operate in the biological components of ecosystems are the physical and chemical processes that occur in the cells of the organisms interacting which, in turn, reduces to biophysics and biochemistry and ultimately to atomic level interactions. Biology is "irreducible" because of the number of hierarchical layers of system organization.

Reductionism and holism each have their proper place in all of biology. All systems must be understood in terms of the interaction between their components and these interactions always involve physical processes. One of jonathan's favorite examples, the chaotic behavior of flocking birds or schooling fish is readily described by a few simple rules for flocking which involves the system components, the individual organisms, detecting both the position and motion of their neighbors. Every analysis of every system requires an understanding of the mechanisms of interaction between the components as well as the internal rules of behavior for each component. Emergence consists of the inability of the internal rules alone without the interaction part to explain the system behavior.

[Burkhard]

Pretty much brings to the point what's wrong with your approach.
Attention to detail and the facts is relevant in all scientific
approaches and methods, that hods for "reductionist" (a term you keep
misusing) and non-reductionist approaches alike.

Proper scientists working with the tools of complexity theories know
this of course - using different mathematical tools doesn't change the
fundamentals of doing experiments, gathering evidence and building
models. With other word, science is hard and often boring work that
requires great attention to details.

You think by abusing half-digested buzzwords from a variety of
complexity theories, you can shortcut that need for hard work, and
dazzle people with woo. With a less scientifically literate crowd, that
might work, here, not so much.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 21:08:23 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan
<writeI...@gmail.com>:

Perhaps you would have been better advised to actually check
an EE curriculum. Here's a hint, though: Programming a
computer is not equivalent to designing a computer (the
actual hardware). The former requires the ability to write
usable code; the second requires an understanding of
electronics *and* (usually) the ability to write usable
code.

>>> earle (EE, Georgia Tech and Stanford)
>>
>> Mine was Johns Hopkins, Whiting School of Engineering.

>Michigan State University, Dept of Mathematics
>....go Spartans!~

....which, of course, makes you an engineering and
programming expert, just like the unidentified author you
quoted...

[RSNorman]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 20:37:38 +0200,
joecummings082...@serv1.ams1.giganews.com wrote:

>On Thu, 26 May 2016 19:15:06 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Much as I dislike the idea of ages, I think a good case can
>>be made that science has now moved from an Age of Reductionism
>>to an Age of Emergence, a time when the search for ultimate
>>causes of things shifts from the behavior of parts to the
>>behavior of the collective. It is difficult to identify a
>>specific moment when this transition occurred because it
>>was gradual and somewhat obscured by the pretense of myths,
>>but there can be no doubt that the dominant paradigm now
>>is organizational.
>>
>>That is why, for example, electrical engineering students
>>are no longer required to learn the laws of electricity –
>>which are very elegant and enlightening but irrelevant
>>to programming computers.
>
>Are you saying that electrical engineering students do not have to
>know
>
>V =IR?????
>
>This is interesting. I'd like a response.
>

Laughlin is a physicist. He seems not to know what EE's do. He
thinks because Ohm's Law is irrelevant to programming computers then
it is irrelevant to the profession.

Incidentally, it is really only physicists who believed in the
"absolute power of mathematics" and total reductionism. Biologists
know that biology is not physics, not even close to physics, and
certainly not reducible to physics even though the only thing that
organisms can do is necessarily what their cells can do which in turn
is necessarily only biophysics and biochemistry. Ecosystems are
explained and described in terms of their components, species.
Organisms are explained and described in terms of their components,
organs and organ systems. Organs are explained and described in terms
of their components, cells. It is reductionisms all the way down.
Going back up it is all emergence. That has been part of biology for
more than a century now. Nothing new here.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 28 May 2016 07:43:52 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Based on 30+ years experience as an engineer (who had to
learn programming in multiple languages), I'd say you are
correct.

[Ernest Major]

On 28/05/2016 15:25, rno...@umich.edu wrote:
> Biology has long been ridiculed by physicists because biology has never been riddled with the canard or the "power of mathematics" or total reductionism. We biologists have know for a century or more about "levels of organization", each of which has its own type of components (actors or agents, if you wish) and behaviors. Biology does not reduce to physics any more than ecosystems are explained by cellular activity. Nevertheless, the only mechanisms that operate in the biological components of ecosystems are the physical and chemical processes that occur in the cells of the organisms interacting which, in turn, reduces to biophysics and biochemistry and ultimately to atomic level interactions. Biology is "irreducible" because of the number of hierarchical layers of system organization.

I expect that physicists know about levels of organisation as well -
there's (fundamental) particle physics - the standard model - on which
is built nuclear physics, on which is built atomic physics, on which is
built condensed matter physics and quantum chemistry. There's
thermodynamics, which is all about emergent properties. And so on.

--
alias Ernest Major

[RSNorman]

The limited levels of organization (I prefer the American spelling) in
physics still provide for the "absolute power" or mathematical laws
all based on the standard model of quantum field theory. That model
cleanly morphs into Newtonian physics for macroscopic structures in
non-relativistic situatuations. Classical electromagnetism ala
Maxwell holds perfectly well. Even the emergent properties of
phenomenolgical thermodynamics has the statistical thermo foundation.
I claim that this ability to reduce even "higher order" physics to
"fundamental" principles is what makes physicists look down their
noses at biology where no such reduction is even remotely possible.
Your argument shows that the levels of organisation in physics do not
transcend the applicability of the theories about the fundamental
particles. Understanding intermolecular forces is essential to
understanding the biochemistry and biophysics of cellular processes
like metabolism, motility, etc. But it is worthless in describing
interspecies competition or sexual selection, etc., except possibly in
a very few very contrived examples.

What Laughlin has been arguing for some time now is that there are
situations even within physics where the same thing happens. That is
why he is warning physicists about this situation so strongly. He is
talking physics to physicists.

[joecummin...@gmail.ccom]

On Sat, 28 May 2016 05:50:14 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

On tthe contrary, I was reading the cite carefully.

As I've said before, I've an open mind about this whole idea of
"complexity." And when one reads a cite, it's important to look at
what you call the "finer details;" they are part of the cite. You
accuse me of "nitpicking" when I draw attention to this but admit that
the language used is "clumsy." You may think you can distinguish the
"finer details" from the rest of the quotation, but it's possible for
you to be mistaken.

You give me the impression the you've accepted the idea of complexity
and, indeed, fallen in love with the idea to such an extent that
you're prepared to defend it against all comers rather than patiently
explain the idea or, indeed, think it through..

As with some new ideas, there is a tendency to apply this idea to all
situations, even if it later turns out that the idea isn"t applicable.
This has happened in the history of science more than once. In the
XIX Century there was a big hullabuloo about mzgnetism and its effects
on humans. All sorts of charlatans sprung up claiming wonderful
poxers and even today here in a French telephone directory there is a
rubric: "Magnétiseurs" which lists some who claim speciel magnetic
powerss of healing.

It's possible that the claims for "complexity are being applied to all
sorts of scenarios where it doesn't apply, but experience will be the
final judge.

Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[Burkhard]

RSNorman wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2016 20:41:48 +0100, Ernest Major
> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 28/05/2016 15:25, rno...@umich.edu wrote:
>>> Biology has long been ridiculed by physicists because biology has never been riddled with the canard or the "power of mathematics" or total reductionism. We biologists have know for a century or more about "levels of organization", each of which has its own type of components (actors or agents, if you wish) and behaviors. Biology does not reduce to physics any more than ecosystems are explained by cellular activity. Nevertheless, the only mechanisms that operate in the biological components of ecosystems are the physical and chemical processes that occur in the cells of the organisms interacting which, in turn, reduces to biophysics and biochemistry and ultimately to atomic level interactions. Biology is "irreducible" because of the number of hierarchical layers of system organization.
>>
>> I expect that physicists know about levels of organisation as well -
>> there's (fundamental) particle physics - the standard model - on which
>> is built nuclear physics, on which is built atomic physics, on which is
>> built condensed matter physics and quantum chemistry. There's
>> thermodynamics, which is all about emergent properties. And so on.
>
> The limited levels of organization (I prefer the American spelling)

You mean the Oxford spelling :o)

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 28 May 2016 09:47:23 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

....and the sound of slithering, diminishing into the
distance.

[J. J. Lodder]

Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/27/2016 2:37 PM,
> joecummings082...@serv1.ams1.giganews.com wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 May 2016 19:15:06 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> "Much as I dislike the idea of ages, I think a good case can
> >> be made that science has now moved from an Age of Reductionism
> >> to an Age of Emergence, a time when the search for ultimate
> >> causes of things shifts from the behavior of parts to the
> >> behavior of the collective. It is difficult to identify a
> >> specific moment when this transition occurred because it
> >> was gradual and somewhat obscured by the pretense of myths,
> >> but there can be no doubt that the dominant paradigm now
> >> is organizational.
> >>
> >> That is why, for example, electrical engineering students

> >> are no longer required to learn the laws of electricity -

> >> which are very elegant and enlightening but irrelevant
> >> to programming computers.
> >
> > Are you saying that electrical engineering students do not have to
> > know
> >
> > V =IR?????
> >
> > This is interesting. I'd like a response.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Your reply shows typical reductionist mindsets.
> Instead of replying to the concept being discussed
> reductionists will choose to nit-pick the finer
> details.

Of course, that's where the devil is,

Jan