About matter and emergentism

[Mixcoatl]

Science often invokes the concept of emergentism (don't know if this is the right word in english)—both strong and weak—to explain how the organization of parts gives rise to properties that the parts themselves don't possess. Take water, for example: liquidity doesn’t reside in individual hydrogen or oxygen atoms. It's only when they’re arranged in a particular way that this quality emerges. Or consider a clock: its ability to tell time is not found in any single gear, but in the systematic arrangement of all its components.
I agree with the idea of emergence—but not in the way science typically frames it. Because liquidity, and even “telling time,” are mental constructs perceived by a conscious being. And if we truly follow the logic of emergentism, then we must also accept that matter itself is emergent—from subparticles. For centuries, the atom was considered the fundamental building block of reality. But if we’re consistent, the atom is just as much an emergent phenomenon as the "time" displayed on a clock.
There’s no essential difference between an atom and the hour a clock tells. Both arise from structured interpretation.

[LastThursday]

What emerges is recognition of a pattern (structured interpretation). The parts of a system in isolation don't explain the system because the emergent behaviour of the system is to do with dynamic relationships between the parts. The parts of a clock don't tell the time, but the dynamic ongoing relationships between the parts do. It seems more obvious if you re-arrange the parts of a system and the emergent behaviour disappears. The dynamics are a thing unto themselves.

I think this happens in both directions.

For example, atoms are an emergent phenomenon because people (scientists) take many observations, which when pooled together makes a pattern emerge, that of atoms (or at least a story about atoms).

Something like language is emergent, because it is the dynamic interplay of many parts both physical and mental. The interesting thing is that there isn't necessarily an innate language ability, it's just the the parts come together just right as a system to make language emerge.

Sometimes the emergent patterns are statistical only, so when you zoom in the emergent behaviour dissolves. For example idea of temperature is purely statistical, if you zoom into hot matter it's just random movement, but on average the faster movement produces higher temperatures.

[kavaris]

Iuno, i keep thinkin bout the fact that like, there arent edges... in other words, the moment you find yourself trying to add things to the equation, its likely you need to be doing subtraction instead, in order to understand it all, cause its always a paradox at the center, and it undulates between adding, subtracting, adding, subtracting, etc, etc, forever and ever. but remember, theres no edges, its just one continuous flow, and so there are levels to the paradox, and just holding onto the paradox is like, level1 of being trapped in a paradox.... then you need to forget your in a paradox, otherwise it challenges the thing you are doing while you are doing it, which is part of the centipedes dilemma... but thats how it all works, you need to challenge your reality, then forget, then challenge your reality, then forget, and all around that is like, things that look like words, and trees, and lollipops, and fudge factories, and ships~in~a~bottle, etc. nd so, you cant ever assume you know anything, cause its like, the very thing you are doing, is itself the only thing that there is—that can be known—and everything is like, a higher order experiment, on a lower order, fundamental realization.