Whilst I appreciate the validity of criticism offered here of the use of the word emergence (by itself) as if were an explanation sufficient unto itself—I think it a little harsh. To call it “futile” is almost acting as semantic stop sign itself for the term.
We need to take a little time to properly understand what is meant by emergence when used properly.
First that it is an observation rather than an explnation. But an observation with useful descriptive power since it observes that the phenomena under consideration is a process with properties whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties.
Therefore not at all properties that arise from interactions or combinations of smaller components are emergent (e.g. putting a whole bunch of magnets together just gives a larger magnetic field). So not all things arise are emergent.
So, while “emergence” is hardly an explanation—and one is obliged to look for the mechanisms that lead to the emergent behaviour - (such as how the polar hydrogen bonds in H20 give water surface tension—a property that a single H2O molecule does not exhibit) - nevertheless it’s use as an observation has power since it points us to look for (and ask question about) how properties which do not exist in the sub components come to be via the interactions of the components (often multi-factor) - and also to see if there are simple factors or descriptive rules than have predictive power (e.g. flocking phenomena of birds)
Whilst I appreciate the validity of criticism offered here of the use of the word emergence (by itself) as if were an explanation sufficient unto itself—I think it a little harsh. To call it “futile” is almost acting as semantic stop sign itself for the term.
We need to take a little time to properly understand what is meant by emergence when used properly.
First that it is an observation rather than an explnation. But an observation with useful descriptive power since it observes that the phenomena under consideration is a process with properties whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties.
Therefore not at all properties that arise from interactions or combinations of smaller components are emergent (e.g. putting a whole bunch of magnets together just gives a larger magnetic field). So not all things arise are emergent.
So, while “emergence” is hardly an explanation—and one is obliged to look for the mechanisms that lead to the emergent behaviour - (such as how the polar hydrogen bonds in H20 give water surface tension—a property that a single H2O molecule does not exhibit) - nevertheless it’s use as an observation has power since it points us to look for (and ask question about) how properties which do not exist in the sub components come to be via the interactions of the components (often multi-factor) - and also to see if there are simple factors or descriptive rules than have predictive power (e.g. flocking phenomena of birds)