Sean Carroll

In it, you provided the definition of emergence as the operations micro theory goes to macro theory and time zero goes to time one commuting with each other. Doesn't this by definition rule out strong type three emergence? Isn't the point of the strong emergence that the macro theory predicts brand new outcomes that the micro theory starts being wrong at a certain scale?

In it, you provided the definition of emergence as the operations micro theory goes to macro theory and time zero goes to time one commuting with each other. Doesn't this by definition rule out strong type three emergence? Isn't the point of the strong emergence that the macro theory predicts brand new outcomes that the micro theory starts being wrong at a certain scale?

Yes, that is completely true. So if you think that strong emergence can happen, then that simple idea of the commuting diagram between time and the emergence map would fail. And in the paper, we say that very explicitly. I still think it is useful to start with that conception because it's easy to understand.

Yes, that is completely true. So if you think that strong emergence can happen, then that simple idea of the commuting diagram between time and the emergence map would fail. And in the paper, we say that very explicitly. I still think it is useful to start with that conception because it's easy to understand.

I know that out there in emergence land or in the land of people who talk about emergence, there is a strong constituency of that resists any version of emergence that is understandable. They think that emergence is only an interesting concept in those cases where you can't understand what's going on. And I resist that. I don't think that's true.

I know that out there in emergence land or in the land of people who talk about emergence, there is a strong constituency of that resists any version of emergence that is understandable. They think that emergence is only an interesting concept in those cases where you can't understand what's going on. And I resist that. I don't think that's true.

In some cases, you can certainly understand what's going on. And they would say, therefore, that's not emergence. I would say it's a kind of emergence. Let's understand this first. And then let's add on the weird stuff that you want to add for the strong emergence later. That's my personal preference.

In some cases, you can certainly understand what's going on. And they would say, therefore, that's not emergence. I would say it's a kind of emergence. Let's understand this first. And then let's add on the weird stuff that you want to add for the strong emergence later. That's my personal preference.

Nicholas Sharosky says, given your stance on poetic naturalism and emergence, would you say that when describing a sunset, both person A, who says shorter blue and violet wavelengths are scattered by rarely scattering, and person B, who says the light dances, transforming the sky into a fiery canvas, are using sufficiently accurate and useful vocabularies to be considered real.

Nicholas Sharosky says, given your stance on poetic naturalism and emergence, would you say that when describing a sunset, both person A, who says shorter blue and violet wavelengths are scattered by rarely scattering, and person B, who says the light dances, transforming the sky into a fiery canvas, are using sufficiently accurate and useful vocabularies to be considered real.

How does this align with your notion of emergence, where different levels of reality and their descriptions must remain compatible? Does the poetic vocabulary of person B, in your view, fall short of the scientific one of person A in capturing reality, or is it equally valid? I don't think it's equally valid. I think they're both completely valid, right? But that doesn't mean equal, you know?

How does this align with your notion of emergence, where different levels of reality and their descriptions must remain compatible? Does the poetic vocabulary of person B, in your view, fall short of the scientific one of person A in capturing reality, or is it equally valid? I don't think it's equally valid. I think they're both completely valid, right? But that doesn't mean equal, you know?

They're trying to do different things. If I said, could you explain— physically, why the sunset looks more red than blue, and someone gave me the answer, the light dances transforming the sky into a fiery canvas, I would not give them full credit on an exam, okay?

They're trying to do different things. If I said, could you explain— physically, why the sunset looks more red than blue, and someone gave me the answer, the light dances transforming the sky into a fiery canvas, I would not give them full credit on an exam, okay?

Likewise, if I said, give me a poetic description of the feelings that this sunset evokes in you, if you started talking about Rayleigh scattering, I would not give you a full marks on that exam either. I think it's relative to the kind of thing you're trying to achieve.

Likewise, if I said, give me a poetic description of the feelings that this sunset evokes in you, if you started talking about Rayleigh scattering, I would not give you a full marks on that exam either. I think it's relative to the kind of thing you're trying to achieve.

Now there's the additional factor that in these two cases, the kinds of things you're trying to achieve, a scientific understanding of photon scattering versus a poetic description of the feelings that are invoked by the sunset, have different standards of success, right? Science, the scientific kind of description there is much more precise and rigorous and testable and quantifiable.

Now there's the additional factor that in these two cases, the kinds of things you're trying to achieve, a scientific understanding of photon scattering versus a poetic description of the feelings that are invoked by the sunset, have different standards of success, right? Science, the scientific kind of description there is much more precise and rigorous and testable and quantifiable.

And the more poetic description is a little bit harder to judge whether it's successful or not. That doesn't stop them from both being accurate or both being real. They're just trying to do two different things. Nico Bersianek says, my question is about quantum field theory. When an observer travels in space, for example, do they cross quantum fields?

And the more poetic description is a little bit harder to judge whether it's successful or not. That doesn't stop them from both being accurate or both being real. They're just trying to do two different things. Nico Bersianek says, my question is about quantum field theory. When an observer travels in space, for example, do they cross quantum fields?