So, what is “Emergence”, anyway? This is the second passage on it and it’s time to say — more explicitly — what it is. After all, we all kind of know what the term refers to, or do we?
Many chemists and physicists do not like the term. “What is its point?” For example, if you take the CHNOPS chemicals and mix them just right, Life “results” or “occurs” or “is caused”. Why say life “emerges”? What is added? It sounds unscientific, spooky-like.
Yet, noted physicist, Sean Carroll has written an entire book (The Big Picture) pretty much dedicated to this concept. “There are many ways of talking about the world, each of which captures a different aspect of the underlying whole”, he writes.(1) This vision of reality is “innocuous-seeming but secretly profound” and he calls it “Poetic Naturalism.” What is vital is that all these “stories” must fit together. “Higher level” ways of talking must be consistent with those ‘below’ it. He then declares, “One pivotal word enables that reconciliation between the different stories: emergence.”(his italics, 2)
Emergence is as much a logical concept as it is a physical one. Carroll cites 19th century French philosopher Auguste Comte as the first to explicitly delineate a “hierarchy of sciences”.(3) We all tacitly acknowledge this hierarchy, with not much dissent. Physics is “the most microscopic and comprehensive level; out of that emerges chemistry, and then biology, and then psychology, and finally sociology”, Carroll summarizes Comte’s view. But here is the controversial part, each layer does not ‘collapse’ into those below it because each “way of talking” or each “effective theory” — as Carroll also calls them — is valuable and logically autonomous in itself.
For example, the chemistry and neurology of the brain will someday “explain” all the ‘truths’ of psychology we might want to say, but Carroll disagrees. “The emergent theory (in this case, psychology, gww) describes true features of the system that might be completely hidden from the microscopic point of view”, he argues.(4) He contends emergent theories are additional knowledge of the system; more precisely, they are knowledge of “useful ways of talking” about it.(5) The microscopic theories do not say, or explain, all that is worth saying about the system.
What is this “usefulness”? It seems to be a shift in, a build up of, perspective. In fact, Carroll cites Ludwig Boltzmann’s explanation of entropy: Entropy is “a way of counting how many possible microscopic arrangements of the stuff in a system would look indistinguishable from a macroscopic point of view.”(6)
For example, what we refer to as “the sky” is a physical situation with high entropy ; many different atomic and sub-atomic layouts (descriptions) of any particular view of the sky could be possible and accurate. They would all “look the same” to us; each could be (as far as we are concerned) whatever the actual atomic configuration was. “The sky” is not a highly organized “thing;” but for what we would call “more complex or more highly organized phenomena”—like a living thing or a human society—far fewer atomic descriptions of it could be accurate, fewer would be, or look, the same to us. They have low physical entropy, and therefore a much more exact and limited range of atomic description.
In that sense, a point of view has now become integral to this vital scientific principle; microscopic occurrences can be taken, or have significance, in different ways!
When we describe the world from the point of view of physics — with its objects and laws — it is, as if, persons don’t exist. Physics is not a ‘human’ perspective. It is universal and, therefore, almost totally abstract. Physics “ignores” all the many layers of complexity that we humans deal with constantly. No macroscopic ‘solids’ or ‘fluids’ stand out to it; no color or sound, no feelings or meanings, no living things, no perceivers, are conceptually present in its vocabulary. For physics, these ‘things’ do not exist except as crude, initial, data that is in need of analysis. They are “subjective phenomena” for which their ‘true nature’—their microscopic sub-structure—can be discovered. This is just what Carroll is arguing against with his advocacy of “Emergence” and the different “Levels of Effective Theory.” There is more to our world than its atomic structure. Gee, that seems rather obvious!
“Physics is the simplest of all the sciences,” Carroll says, “not ‘simple’ in the sense that the homework problems are easy, but simple in the sense of Galileo’s trick of ignoring…”(7) He says, some make of this that “if we completely understand the microscopic level,…we know everything there is to know…Whatever (macroscopic, gww) questions you might have can be translated into the microscopic language and answered there.”(8)
Carroll agrees, in one sense; all the ways we talk about ourselves (if it is legitimate talk) must be compatible. So, ‘our’ behavior, as a system of atoms, is predictable and determined by the laws of physics and chemistry. The idea of “You” is “not a part of our best theory of atoms” or any other microscopic object. Carroll continues, “you are an emergent phenomena, meaning that you are an element in a higher-level ontology that describes the world at a macroscopic level.” As “You”, it is “perfectly appropriate to talk about wants and feelings and desires” and also choices. “Those are all real phenomena in our best understanding of human beings”, he concludes.(9)
So, atoms don’t have wants and feelings, nor do waves in a quantum field. Even though ‘you’ are made of such things, and understanding ‘you’ as a particular collection of them, can predict, “in principle”, all the movements of ‘you’. We can still legitimately say ‘you’ have wants and feelings.
Nor are wants and feelings caused by atoms. That is a mistaken way to talk, says Carroll. It is incoherent; it is mixing two vocabularies. Wants and feelings are caused by other elements at the vocabulary level of ‘you’ (10), things like ‘need’, ‘instinct’, ‘ambition’, ‘expectation’, ‘socialization’, ‘desire;’ these cause wants and feelings. Atoms (or quantum fields, or whatever) only interact with other things of their kind. Each way of talking is at its own emergent level.
This is Emergence, I believe: it is an ‘unfolding’ of potential, not a necessary sequence of caused objects. It is our good fortune that from a microscopic world of quantum waves or sub-atomic particles more complex unities appeared. It did not need to happen and it is a somewhat rare occurrence in the universe, apparently. But, on our special planet, it did happen, and from our point of view, as rational humans, many emergent properties and abilities needed to emerge for us to get to our current situation. We can trace ‘our’ origin to the Big Bang, but there is a huge gap from there to humans going to the moon and sending robotic explorers into deep space. Also, humans have a reasonable understanding of the entire universe at a microscopic level, and we live to write about all this and consider the significance of these accomplishments.
So, the connection between the Microscopic World and the various Macroscopic Worlds (“ways of talking” about the micro) is not causation, but “usefulness”and “emergence” according to Carroll. It is how the microscopic order is ‘taken’, ‘used,’ that matters to Poetic Naturalism. There are some patterns among these microscopic structures that stand out to us—in addition to abiding by all physical laws—as if they were our ‘shadow,’ a trail of more complex patterns that are us, ourselves Emerging through all the levels.
Life, consciousness, animal societies, human language is what can possibly evolve from the simplified nature revealed in the hard sciences. Useful ways of talking about the microscopic add new properties, new abilities and new objects that are “autonomous” and meaningful on their own, because they are a set of interrelated structures, functions, and qualities. “The emergent theory is autonomous (it works by itself, without reference to other theories)”, and “truly new”, contends Carroll. (11)
That is a nice thought! It is real and legitimate to understand the universe as useful to us as persons. Emergence allows us, literally, to see this, and the concept of “emergence” allows us to understand that we do fit in this universe as a qualitatively rich and complex place. We can look out and see it, hear, smell and feel these developments. We can also try to understand these emergent wonders.
A Puzzle To Be Solved?
I am not sure Sean Carroll has solved the problem of the relationship of one level to another. As a physicist, he speaks out strongly for the a dominant role of that version of reality. But physicists are persons too, and perhaps primarily. Maybe the social and historical level of “Effective Theories” will in the end be just as significant as the hard core physical? After all, physics has itself changed its view of “ultimate reality” often. The self-reflective process of human history maybe the most reliable understanding of our human condition, but a very open-ended one.
So, there is more to the universe than atoms in motion. The next post will provide Carroll’s basic examples of how the universe “emerges” from these atoms. The universe becomes more than its basic stuff, and is “for our purposes”, “useful” and ‘significant’ to us! Two important mechanisms or structures for emergence will be described: coarse-graining and fractal organization.
Notes: From Carroll’s The Big Picture: 1. page 93 2) 94 3) 104 4) 108 5) 108 6) 227 7) 25 8). 108 9).113 10) 113 11) 106-7
12) Compatibilism is the idea that higher qualities and abilities are compatible with a Deterministic Universe. Just because physics knows a lot about the movement of the basic particles and quantum waves of the universe, does not mean that there are not still more interesting and significant things to be said about those microscopic realities. 13. page 17