Murray Gell-Mann On Emergence

[mjeshaw]

My father once came out with, "The universe is so vast, there just has to be something MORE to give it a meaning." When finally made to see this was simply a non-sequitur, he resorted to quoting, "There are MORE things in heaven and earth Horatio...etc.", smugly assuming that meant he'd won a debate. But if the religious were open to reason, they wouldn't be religious in the first place. There can be no debate because they're simply too afraid of death to think logically or care about evidence.

[Mjhond]

I am very happy to see the vidoe after you give this Murray Gell-Mann, a Nobel laureate and the author of The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex talks about emergence.

[Ondelendo]

I Love The Video Murray Gell-Mann, a Nobel laureate and the author of The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex talks about emergence. It Can Increase My Knowledge

[anakmudajaman]

Steady I Really Like This Video Murray Gell-Mann, a Nobel laureate and the author of The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex talks about emergence.

[bebeheuy]

Good, I like that you share this video, I wish success always Murray Gell-Mann, a Nobel laureate and the author of The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex talks about emergence

[imegatrone]

Nice Video That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You Murray Gell-Mann, a Nobel laureate and the author of The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex talks about emergence.

[willamricard]

I Really Like The Video From Your Murray Gell-Mann, a Nobel laureate and the author of The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex talks about emergence

[bundawartini]

Your Video Is Very Useful Sharing Murray Gell-Mann On Emergence

[0Fear]

I bow to you all mighty Accident. 

[trefod]

... Anyway, there isn't huh, huh, huh!

Brilliant! :-)

[Fand421]

lol watch the TED talk before commenting rubbish. I think youtube commenting has become one of the lowest forms of intelligence. If you don't understand something then don't make brash conclusions.

[deskset24]

I really cannot comment on what he says here.

But, if the title of one of the Related videos that I see on the right is correct -

that Gell-Mann endorsed Obama -

then he is a total 100% fucking idiot who knows absolutely NOTHING about the practical world and has never done a day of work in his life,

as is EVERYONE who voted for Obama or McCain or Clinton or Bush(es) or Reagan or any Democrat or Republican since 1980.

[scientrophic]

@deskset24 Come on, man. I think anyone who has given thought to American power structures can agree with your analysis of that, but to call the Nobel Laureate an idiot? You will be a very lonely person if you carry on disregarding people as idiots who don't perfectly align with your world view. Moreover, that is irrelevant to this discussion. If that is your thought, that he is an idiot based on another video, then comment on it there, you know?

[LAEXCITOSAAPARECIDA]

"Form equals function." Enzymes are chemicals made up of atoms. While simple chemical reactions such as Lye, H2O and Aluminum proceed in random bashing together of the products toward a final equilibrium; Enzyme chemicals just by virtue of been Larger and Apt have a form "that equals function," emergent behavior, act as nanomachines. Hexokinase has 2 lobes and closes like aligator jaws, unchanged itself, it speeds reaction a million times. The chemical Ferritin is ball shape and collects iron.

[mescience]

Its one thing to know and predict thru better understanding of physics and biology, but its another to understand truly why something happens. The former we continue to learn more about and things become less mysterious, but the latter we may never know.

[physicistprime]

Physicists like bohr, ruthenford, planck, schrodinger, heisenberg... Were highly intelligent and full of wisdom. Physicists today are highly intelligent with small amount of wisdom. They are more like computers and less a human being

[redbeardo0o]

disagree

[JanPB]

I am a mathematician and I also studied physics quite a bit and yet I disagree with Gell-Mann here completely. He doesn't seem to realise that "accidents", "biology", etc. are just _words_ which do not explain anything, they merely push the question to a different place. This is the standard trap for a scientist to fall into and it has been such ever since the Enlightenment. There are some knowledgeable scientists but very few wise ones.

[cronx1337]

@JanPB take your bible and masturbate somewhere else.

[JanPB]

@cronx1337 I am not a religious person and I know the relevant physics backwards and forwards and I can tell you that Richard Feynman was 100% right when he said we don't really know. All that physics is is a set of _models_. This is usually sold in pop-sci books as some sort of explanation of something.

[wl2109]

A mere mortal (though certainly outstanding!) who can't even tell what happens after he dies, let alone when it will happen! trying to proseltyze others with his own religion of "non-existence of supernatural".

He doesn't have a verified, complete theory of how life emerged. He doesn't for sure know where he came from nor where he is heading to. He 'believes' that there is no supernatural. He has no proof that there isn't. Let us all be cautious.

[metanosis]

@wl2109 well said, all science can do is observe and record, and piece together

some scientific casual chains, but the origins(or first cause) remains well out of reach,and indeed caution(and humility in the face of the unknown, not arrogance),

are qualities that scientists of generations ago had, and that current scientists have sacrificed at the altar of materialism.

[wl2109]

A mere mortal (though certainly outstanding!) who can't even tell what happens after he dies, let alone when it will happen! trying to proseltyze others with his own religion of "non-existence of supernatural".

He doesn't have a verified, complete theory of how life emerged. He doesn't for sure know where he came from nor where he is heading to. He 'believes' that there is no supernatural. He has no proof that there isn't. Let us all be cautious.

[wl2109]

A mere mortal (though certainly outstanding!) who can't even tell what happens after he dies, let alone when it will happen! trying to proseltyze others with his own religion of "non-existence of supernatural".

He doesn't have a verified, complete theory of how life emerged. He doesn't for sure know where he came from nor where he is heading to. He 'believes' that there is no supernatural. He has no proof that there isn't. Let us all be cautious.

[alpha520mec]

I was last week at a talk with E. Verlinde about gravity as an emergent force caused by entropy.

it was pretty interesting, and i think opens a new way of understanding physics as a complex system from which "emerges" efficient structures

[mrqsilveira]

From Baruch Spinoza to Eric Verlinde we are gloriously back to Amsterdam! God of Israel save Portugal... Netherlands... and Brazil!

[etiennealive]

mrqsilveira@ O I forgot to mention. If you have the holographic principia together with M theory ; You have better conditions to formulate a fundamental theory that includes the observer / perceiver, in a scientific aplieble, more acceptable way.

From this point of view, the observer / perceiver casus might be solved.

[mrqsilveira]

I have downloaded Erik Verlinde's pdf paper from the site UDUALITY, where the Dutch theoretical mathematical physicist shows that entropic gravity is emergent, assuming that the microscopic structure of space-time is holographic, aiming at displacing Einstein's geometric approach given by the principle of equivalence.

[etiennealive]

Yes still alive, chaotic, bussy but progressive times, I'm in.

Have you also heard about the work of Prof Gerard 't Hoofd about the holographic principia. (University of Utrecht / nobellaureate).

Thanks for showing the site UDUALITY. I didn't know this one.

Indeed gravity is emergent and unavoideble when "mass" comes close to each other. The reason why it is like that is the same reason why it acts like that.

Imagine the time in history when Spinoza lived, . What a great mind this man had !

[orcodrilo]

The point that sold me emergence even before knowing the concept was Conway's game of life. I thougth, "wow, those shapes in that litle 0 players game do seem like programmed robots or designed", but in fact most of them where discovered by chance. They emerged from 3 simple rules, repetition and a random original shape....

[mrqsilveira]

If one thinks in terms of fractals, heredity of complex organisms may take another formal mathematical underlying framework based, then, in topology.

[etiennealive]

It's possible. C. Jung says the same.

[etiennealive]

I've searched for the wright term for months, but I think I've got it.

Cummulative resonance. = a good alternative wordt that describes some of the important emergent propertys of nature.

Oh yes. Yesterday I got the good news ; I'm going to school again for one year at least. I was out working a long time. If I do good ... I'll be at one of our uiversitys the next year in september. The company I work for pays the bills. Thanks to the economic crisis. The statetax, pays the companies now ! YES

[mrqsilveira]

Very Good! Congratulations! Have a nice time!

[etiennealive]

mrqsilveira > Thank you very much.

[mrqsilveira]

'Cumulative resonance' sounds great for describing important emergent properties. Yes, it is!

[etiennealive]

@mrqsilveira > Have you already seen the results of Prof Erik verlinde on his new description of gravity. Dutch theoretical mathematician and collega and friend of Edward Witten. They work on the same projects together (M theory is one of them). His books are writen in English, so don't worry about, translation problems.

Basicly he also found a way to describe gravity, like Witten succeeded in. But his method is different. Despite that the result is the same. Have a nice day.

[mrqsilveira]

Great etienne... still alive! Prof Erik Verlinde, I will searh on the internet. Thanks!

[etiennealive]

My youngest brother also got his Phd, on elektromagnetisme and safety. So this will be a step forward in the wright direction, I hope.

[mrqsilveira]

It seems that there is a fuzzy junction between the very small (QF) and the very large (GR). I am stating that the DNA is a hyperlinked hierarchy of discontinuities (mutations) immersed in a quantum gravitational field. The genes are geodesics (pathways of least action maybe) within the complex holographical manifold we live in. Accordingly, I am also stating that species can be seen as symmetry break as for the big picture, and this gives the fuzzy interface between the QF & GR.

[etiennealive]

It certainly is one of the possibiltys , worth investigating.

What's interesting , is that some of the things the mind does is programmed in the DNA so ther's a link to. There are al sorts of happenings that have a "çhanging" effect on the DNA, which will be past on to the next generation..

[mallamoozoo]

interesting - how bout make  a video with graphics elaborating on it for us.

[mrqsilveira]

Sure! But for that I need to be inside a f1 car in a speedy race... I mean, as you know the emotions of being in such a race, help me driving out a graphical image of my accelerated thoughts, please!

[mrqsilveira]

The new ontological plateau is reached, it does not dispense with the old laws, but this new plateau is essentially affirmed by an entirely new conceptual framework. Take for instance Einstein's X Newton's theory of gravitation. You might say that Newton's laws are valid in a very restrictive way, don't you?

[etiennealive]

Hmmm. I unerstand what you mean, and yes the old laws , all , are valid in a restrictive way. That's what's happens each time after a new ontological plateau is reached.

Your idea about the Calabi -Yau space -corresponding , with the brain electron paths sounds as a good possibilty , of having a much deeper and realy interesting, visualisation of what the DOES when it whatches the rose like in the simulation of Henry Markram. (and what it does when it doesn't whatch, or when it's dreaming..).

[etiennealive]

Besides connecting the Calabi-Yau space with our elektron brain of wich we spoke of, Henry Marskram said that his model use the same mathematicle formula's as George Smoot uses to calculate and visualise our universe. So from this perspective it is possible that in the comming years the fundamental theory can be connected by practikly, aplieble scientific calculating and visualisation. Maybe this way of acting could result in fysical proof of Wittens' theory / ontological plateau. !?

[mrqsilveira]

I wish Witten's theory could be thoroughly theoretically self-sustained... but for that one needs fundamental principles! Yes! If calculations using string theory are good enough to send us to other worlds and bring us back to Mother Earth, that will be a hell of a magnificent prove!

[etiennealive]

Well 'if you look at what's considderd "very small" and what's "very big" we are somewere in the middle of it al. Maybe in the future we will see that the emerging brain whith its inteligence, intuition, perception of beauty is the scientific intermediair of it al . It seems to me we furst will have to learn deep about our self, before we are allowed / equiped to see the rest. This understanding can only be achieved by reason, acceptation, fusion of ideas of different scientific paths.

[etiennealive]

Is it possible that , the fundamental theory can be connected to the two emerging beings we know quit well ; Us and our universe. ? following from our theory about how to do this ?

[mrqsilveira]

The Strong Principle of Equivalence says that there is an unified foundation underlying both the emergence of the universe and the emergence of life. Also, in the Genesis, Adam& Eve, by eating the apple, clearly show the emergence of the Ego - bringing the possibility of an evolving ethos - connected with the archetypical energy of the unconscious mind represented by the serpent.

[mrqsilveira]

We could take Calabi-Yau Spaces generalizations as differential topology approximations to Unconscious Mind Theoretical Manifolds coupling these with Space-Time Manifolds according old valued data from analytical psychology. An interesting differential topology coupling would be to consider the supersymmetrical particles like fotinos, gravitinos, etc as jailed entities of the mind.

[etiennealive]

Yes that's what I mean. The only question is ; how far are the particles " jailed " .

You know it only seems a logical research that needs to be done in the nearby future. Since , at least I think it is a logical step to investigate the correspondence of "A" fundamantal theory, with somethings that we know of have emerged; like the universe or us. Both the universe and our elektron brain activity are known quit well .( Computer) Simulations are already availeble . Marskram , Smoot, etc.. .

[etiennealive]

What I meen is the possiblity of having a theory that in our time can be prakticly aplied. The universe including us are in fact the practicle apliences wich follow from the fundamental theory, aren't we !? From this point of view, it seems almost unavoideble investigating it in this way ,to be able to realy understand, this higher topological plateau.

[mrqsilveira]

The Calabi-Yau dualities!

[etiennealive]

Ok, that connect this with somebody who already emerged at the end of an amazingly long sequence of events , us.

[mrqsilveira]

I think Strings could be fundamental for Quantum Computing Teleportation Science!

[mrqsilveira]

About being privileged and God's subtlety: Moses only sees the Holy Land from the Sacred Mount! I believe we should get used to this jewish fatalism!

[mrqsilveira]

I believe Witten's system is as much messy as Ptolomaic's! The SEP & SRP & SNP are personal discoveries. Taking deeper paths of abstraction, Topology is a generalization of Geometry. The idea is to take this abstraction deeper and deeper in order to touch the unconscious mind content and then map this to event horizon of the emergent universe. Given this topological nexus, I don't think Witten's 100 branes can still subsist!

[mrqsilveira]

Our conversation is helping me throwing some light on: Topology: SNP X SEP

Given the fact that the unconscious mind archetypical content is the purest form of energy yet capable of interacting with mass-content body-like complex systems, SNP becomes a very interesting axiom for dealing with complex organisms that emerge again axiomatically according to SEP.

[etiennealive]

I agree that's why , few weeks ago I mentioned comparing the fundamental theorys with our brains for a start.(Witten vs Marskram) The interactive correspondence of body and mind is of course the most interesting onotopecal plateau to be studied, with the found laws and rules.

[mrqsilveira]

The other night I dreamed Einstein saying that we need an unified body of theory!

[etiennealive]

Having a unified body of theory would be very nice, indeed. Not only for scientific purposes , It will also unite scientists as persone. Maybe than we , finaly, can understand each other better.

[mrqsilveira]

There certainly has a quantum gravity field. Life no doubt emerges into it. The present physics theoretical framework is completely unable to state any relevant clear scientific top-level statement about it. It can only perceive several connections relating vacuum fluctuations and complexity.

[etiennealive]

The main argument against it is that it like all other theorys , can't be proven yet. If you look at the evolution of scientific achievements, you see that after each understanding or integration , hundreds of new question and possibilty's emerge, before there are new integrations etc. etc. . So who says we are on the border of THE higher onotopical plateau !? It still is al a little premature to me.

[mrqsilveira]

No, it is not premature! The next level of maturation and understanding will be well within the scope of the Spirit while we travel unbounded thru megauniverses ... ... ...

[etiennealive]

I hope so . It would make me feel extra privileged , to live in this time and to witness this aswell think about this , as it emerges.

[mrqsilveira]

Paul Tillich - XX century greatest teologian - once said that "Personal God" is a symbol to the numinous we cannot even dream to reach. Now, jewish mind has accomplished so much in science and loosing identity with their own invention the One God symbol. That surprises me to the point of reminding that Freud says that atheism is the logical outcome of monotheism.

[etiennealive]

From this point of view it is maybe interesting to watch : "Richard Dawkins vs Ben Stein" (see what Dawkins says about creation about half way trough the video.., I can only conclude that even atheists beleve in a way.. The only valid argument atheists have is that we don't know. But that doesn't exclude anything, same does Murray Gell-Mann.

[mrqsilveira]

Thanks for suggestion on Richard Dawkins vs Ben Stein"!

[mrqsilveira]

It seems that Mr. Gell-Mann does not care about an ultimate fundamental principle. He is like a once very decent jew that despises Living God now for too much blind love for Science. It is curious!!

[mrqsilveira]

First one must understand the meaning of an ultimate fundamental principle. The SEP (strong equivalence principle) beautifully embodies natural selection, while SRP (strong relativity principle) unerringly expresses aleatory mutation just a level above their weaker statements in physics, respectively as the Equivalence Principle and the Relativity Principle.

[etiennealive]

About this I still don't agree ; each time a new onotopical plateau is reached, it is based on the old laws, Murray Gell and Witten are similair in that perspective. Both are needed to get a wider and deeper point of view . Even when unification is real, the most parts of their old laws will stiil be valid, though discribed in a new more elegant and simple way. Both SEP aswell SRP will still excist is my personal opinion. You don't NEED to get rid of one !

[mrqsilveira]

What's onotopical?!

[etiennealive]

You know my spelling is bad. sorry

[mrqsilveira]

That your spelling sometimes targets an unknown language, I am getting used to it! But some other times, It seems that it is easier for Witten to translate the Calabi-Yau spaces among various string theories! To tell the truth, there is some beauty to your whole thought.

[etiennealive]

Sometimes I write the wrong words to I know , I'm working on it. To be better understood, would be nice. Of course Witten can explain his theory the best. I'm only saying like you that it would be nice to have a practicle aplication, so his and other birds come in the bag. Thanks for your comment, I very much apreciate our correspondence.

[etiennealive]

I think we're on the same line about this subject.

[mrqsilveira]

It is not all the same! Witten cannot go ahead because he is missing some fundamental principles to give the theory a coherent direction, like having a compass if you're in boat in the immense sea. I believe the disagreement among scientists has to do with our living in a mysterious universe and being fiercely competitive!

[etiennealive]

Like lawers plieding for their own case , while forgetting they've got the same goal ? . So it's a mather of egoisme in it's counter productive form ? I don't know , what are the fundamental principels that Wittens' missing, and why he's missing them? Maybe it's like in nature that the reflection from the sence of beauty comes from the male side and otherwise . Without the two sides there's nothing to be reflected against ? deriviated it means that at the moment you understand both it = one.

[mrqsilveira]

In 1988 Witten himself stated that he missed a simple principle for reconciling gravity & quantum physics like Einstein's Equivalence Principle for GR. I very much believe this principle is the strong principle of equivalence. He is missing it because this principle says that between existence and action there must have a fluctuation of the fundamental state. Also this principle swallows Darwin alive!

[etiennealive]

Ok , that was in 1988 , now with the aded 11 dimension and impoting the excistence of more than a 100 new 'branes" , witten things he's on the right path solving this problem between gravity and quantum physics. and indeed this probably will show a new path in how evolution realy takes place.

[mrqsilveira]

That's the reason Witten missses a SEP: his theory cannot say much about evolution of species other than cloning Gell-Mann's emergence bla-bla. Strings are utterly unable to hold a polite general-tuned XXI century conversation on psycho-bio-physical frames of reference.

[etiennealive]

That's why I think it is a good possibilty to reflect / compare , several scientific directions against each other just one on one. There's a lot of 'alikeness' in in scientific directions. for axample;

- there are several symetric models that look like each other, and all have there own beauty.

-Formulas used to calculate brain activity .correspond with calculations used to simulate the universe , in fact they are so closely related that scientists from both groups want to compare each other.

[mrqsilveira]

The Strong Principle of Equivalence - THE REASON WHY IT [THE EXISTENTIAL QUANTUM] EXISTS IS THE SAME WHY IT ACTS - is at the ontological root of Creation. Creation here as a metaphor or symbol of things we have yet to understand. Life is possible because this principle is the ultimate one driving any branch of evolution in the universe. The SEP happens to be a step above Einstein's EP in the hierarchy of the arrows of explanation.

[etiennealive]

You use other words :

-Exictential quantum vs. fundamental theory

-"it acts " vs. emergent propertys.

after deriviation , it's al the same. Like Witten says ; one discribes the tusk of the elephant the onther discribes the tale. It's like you said before , the two of them give a perfectly balanced perception of reality. The disagreement amoung scientist must have an other origin, than a pure scientific one.

[mrqsilveira]

Not really a free-lunch....

[etiennealive]

Thanks for your comment. This also shows the topological paradox that sits in between theoretical mathematics and quantumphysica.

[mrqsilveira]

I think - if I really do it! - that a very fundamental principle, like Einstein's Equivalence Principle, have indeed a supernatural quality to it. And what this quality is really saying is that you do not have to have something more in order to get something more. That's the wizard's trick, isn't it?!

Look at the Strong Principle of Equivalence: it is saying that you have to get a fluctuation of the fundamental state at the root of the tree of phenomena in order to get going!

[mrqsilveira]

Dear friend, Mr. Murray Gell-Mann!

I am so sorry because you are so wrong!

"The reason why it [The Existential Quantum] exists is the same why it acts"(Spinoza/Silveira).

The Strong Principle of Equivalence does not emerge from the theory!

Indeed, it is the other way around, the theory logically emerges from the metaphysical principle, just like Einstein's EP.

Love,

Mr. Mario Silveira.

[kiasmus]

Well, Mr.Five Brains is just talking nonsense here. The fact is that we don't understand how life or mind came into being. To call that "emergence" is just putting a high-sounding term where a whole explanation is needed. We don't know how those properties emerged in the first place. So until we're able to explain their origin the word "emergence" will remain a scientific fetish.

[rintakumpu]

You're right on that one, "emergence" really is just a word that is used to describe a phenomena, namely one in which "complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions".

To use the example of life (without further definition what constitutes it), even if we don't know the exact way life was born, it almost certainly must have happened in an emergent fashion, shown by its further evolution (which is well understood).

OK, like that + some accidents.

[etiennealive]

@rintakumpu To bad Mr. Gell Mann, doesn't get in the matter more detailed. He says you don't need more to get more. Ok it's a human property. But on the other hand you don't have Eureka moments all day. Even Gell Mann hasn't, as his lecture shows. He talks about idea's emerge after filling the mind with a problem, and information connected with the problem. The idea emerges at a relaxed moment (like brushing your teeth, he mentions). Others say taking a walk in the forrest or at see helps.

[etiennealive]

@rintakumpu comment 2 ) So the lack of stress, compared with a relaxed moment seems to be desireable, to let idea's emerge, from the psyche. I've heard many scientist quote this. Their idea's don't emerge when they are working. The idea's come in a more silence moment, when they aren't at work. When there isn't the overload of information, that people experience when working. Than the bridges are made between the abstract and the concrete, I think. There are, lots of other opinions of course.

[mrqsilveira]

Yes, that's it!

[rlinfinity]

Perhaps you don't understand how emergence works. the underlying mathematics of it. But emergence is not an excuse for a theory. It is a very sound theory. and scientists like us have used this to build emergent systems that exhibit the properties of life. (ANNs, GAs, PSOs, Reactive Architectures, the list is endless). We can't possibly do that unless we had a deep understanding of how this works. For an example youtbe "xsistor swarm" and watch the videos I uploaded of a program I'm working on.

[rlinfinity]

@kiasmus Perhaps you don't understand how emergence works. the underlying mathematics of it. But emergence is not an excuse for a theory. It is a very sound theory. and scientists like us have used this to build emergent systems that exhibit the properties of life. (ANNs, GAs, PSOs, Reactive Architectures, the list is endless). We can't possibly do that unless we had a deep understanding of how this works. For an example youtbe "xsistor swarm" and watch vids i uploaded.

[texkeks]

@kiasmus actually there are quite a number of robust theories about how physical properties have emerged. The only fetish scientists tend to have is that they indulge the minds of the less intelligent too often.

[mdiem]

@kiasmus

Emergence is not a "high-sounding term that replaces an explanation." For example, an ocean wave: Is an ocean wave a separate entity? Does it exist independently from the wind and water and geometry of the sea-floor? No. It emerges as a natural consequence of those other phenomena coming together. It isn't explained beyond the interactions that create it.

Life is like a wave emerging from the natural consequences of chemical interactions. Mind emerges as a function of the brain.

[kiasmus]

You propose a good analogy, but, again, an analogy is NOT an explanation and it can only be used to illustrate phenomena that first have to be explained in their own terms -it's funny how easily people tend to forget that-. But let's forget that for a second only to take your analogy completely seriously. The force of the wind and the water and the geometry of the sea-floor can all be calculated with a reasonable degree of accuracy by the laws of physics.

[kiasmus]

However, which would be the parallels of the analogy in the case of the conscience? Is conscience a sum of elements? Letting aside the extreme crassness of this conception, are these elements discrete entities? In that case, how many entities is conscience made and how do they connect with each other? Is conscience entirely reducible to its so-called parts, as a wave is to its? But if you want to reduce conscience to a sum of elements, the only way is to destroy the very concept of conscience.

[kiasmus]

So if it's not possible to reduce conscience, we're back to the good old "emergency", which, as I see it, is nothing more than a word put to throw a bridge between the impossible gap from the quantitative to the qualitative. Impossible, of course, until something new happens in science. A paradigm shift, maybe. But we're still far from that.

[scientrophic]

@kiasmus Among all of the possibilities presently available, emergence seems the most likely. The alternative is to remain silent about the subject of mind as though we know nothing about how the nervous system transduces at least some aspects of conscious experience, which simply is not the case. Were we to do that, the only people who would be speaking on the subject would be those who know the least, like religious demagogues who derive their knowledge from what amounts to a fairy tale.

[skylark8008]

@kiasmus That's what he says. Emergence being the result of simpler properties being iterated over and over again. It's then a matter of statistical probability that something would arise out of the operations. Nothing more added apart from a lot of waiting whilst the thing does its stuff.

[nopala6]

chaos may be one of the outcomes, not the reason for them. if it is, than we are talking about the same thing; "chaos" would in that case be what some people call "god" or what other call supersttring/unified field..

[aromanro]

I have some college degree and I'm better than Gell-Mann and it's as I say, cause I say so :)

[nopala6]

See those "accidents" he talks about are actually "something more".

[trisky1234]

Not really, the 'accidents' are really just states of the system'.

[nopala6]

What defines them than?

[trisky1234]

chaos

[JazzMetalSteve]

You're a silly sausage - lol!!

[marjan15]

Great man.

[hadtohappen]

Too bad we don't get the proof of this bold statement.

[aromanro]

Well, if you study physics, you get the proof.

[hadtohappen]

No you don't. I have had some colleged physics. I have never seen this issue addressed in scientific way. I have seen physicists fall in love with the equations and think the limits of those equation represent actual limitations in the real world. etc etc etc. I have seen famous mathematical proofs of spontaneous complexity building that actually proved the opposite. Not that it can't happen. But the probabilites are just so against it. So we need something much better than "Cause I say so".

[TimeDuality]

sure luis, you exist in a universe made of energy and information, all systems on it try therefore to absorb energy and information, that is the fractal will of the universe, it explains all events: you eat energy read this for information an electron jumps to absorb energy photons gauges distances (information) before a quantum leaps. but why they do so? to reproduce... electrons emit others, quarks absorb energy and emit new quarks, so they are organic, see more at unificationtheorycom

[cayetanoluis]

Okay, I sort of see what you guys are trying to say now. I'll have a look at the website.

[EinsteinVsHawking]

this guy is an ignorant, his book is bullshit, he follows schrodinger's pathetic concept of mechanical life, the universe is an organism, and each part a linguistic mirror, go back to aristotle and buddha, the infinite worlds/atmans of the universe... the monads of leibniz, the reference frames of einstein and how they coordiante together, the will of the universe and its 2 perpetual motions...

[rintakumpu]

Bold? Absolutely. Controversial? Perhaps. Ignorant? Nope.

[EinsteinVsHawking]

Bold zero, he just follows the reductionist kit of physicists, controversial, zero, unless you quote his despise of humanism, lobbying to prevent economics to become nobel prize - 'wahts next anthropology', ignorant absolutely of any philosophy of science beyond its physical reductionism...

[rintakumpu]

Have to admit you got half a point there. However, you don't have to take everything he says on face value (though, as for this talk, I do).

Even as the one of reductionism isn't his own, the idea shouldn't be dismissed by waving a Buddha, Aristotle or humanism card.

Especially as humanism and reductionism are mutually exclusive only in the—often quite narrow—minds of humanists. Dan Dennett is a fine example of the opposite. And I'm a humanist too (also in the "humanities" sense).

[Kennelmouth]

Yeah...they're always giving Nobel Prizes to ignorant people. What's up with that?

[maxpolaris99]

Al Gore lol

[cayetanoluis]

"the universe is an organism"

Care to qualify that?

"the will of the universe"

Why are you imputing intentionality into the totality of everything that exists?

[steadrick]

I don't think you quite understand how to interprit human communication methods, metaphors and simplifications make it easier for people to understand, or easier for you to express what you're saying..

[cayetanoluis]

"I don't think you quite understand how to interprit human communication methods, metaphors and simplifications make it easier for people to understand, or easier for you to express what you're saying.."

The problem isn't that you're using metaphors, it's that it's far from clear what you're trying to convey when you call the universe an "organism" and talk about it having a "will".

[joseavs]

In the early years before emergence becomes, Gell-Mann was joking in Caltech- this was near a myth- about "Solid Squalid Physics", because all the things becomes from Nuclear Physics. May be the response was a seminal paper and famous paper "More is Different" of P.W. Anderson [Science, 4 Aug. 1972 Vol. 177 No. 4047], and was the "emergence" to of the Solid State Physics. I am agree that this the "Era of Emergence" like other Nobel Laureate wrote. I Like this talk. Thanks for post it!

[rintakumpu]

You're welcome. And thanks for the probably most erudite comment I've ever seen on YouTube!

[joseavs]

Thanks! And This is my first time I ever see the great Murray Gell-Mann in YouTube! As I try to said, is that not all the things [as many reclaims]has derivative from Nuclear Physics. You can not explain how the snow [Happy Holidays] was formed, with the nuclear physics machinery for example. At certain level, the things shift to other rules, that mean "Emergency". Other authors see the Physics like "Fabric of realities". Gell-Mann, in other hand coined "simplixity" no more things to explain:)

[WarzSchoolchild]

'ignorantio elenchi' The logical fallacy of arguing to the wrong point, is the glossarial dilemma faced by the theist/atheist quibble.

Murray Gell-Mann rejects 'magic' as an explanation of profoundly curious phenomena. It's unproductive trite! The theist may be satisfied with faith alone, the subject beyond reach of their intellect. Order is a subset of chaos, if there is infinite chaos? and order is a 'transfinite' subset? there is more order, than chaos! Mathematics of infinity is curious!

[frogdude77]

This chap speaks utter nonsense and he isn't very objective. He uses life as an example, it is only a theory that life came about from chemical and reactions as he put it, it is not a given fact so don't use it in a way that states that it is fact inorder to help make your point. As for the brain we know hardly anything on how the brain works so again not worth mentioning to make your point. In fact what point is he making?

Very poor arguments made here based on theories!

[Keys1337]

His point is you don't need a more complicated theory to explain something which is more complicated. Keep it simple stupid, or elegant as Murray would more likely say.

[midnight9wanderer]

You have no ground to call things 'just theories', that you have obviously no knowledge of the physical experiments and, so far, 100% accurate predictions of interactions based on these 'just theories' like QED and QCD and GR. Until you know at least some of the math and the results of even a few high energy experiments, calling things 'just theories' is as ignorant as it gets.

[andid]

Theories are the highest achievements in Science. It's not an educated guess, as we use the word "theory" in everyday conversation. It's a tested hypothesis, proven over and over again, that's yet to be disproved by another human being. If you want to disprove Murray Gell-Mann, you need to learn JUST AS MUCH as Gell-Mann, then add to that something HE didn't know. Watching one 1:30 min long YT video is not exactly the kind of credentials you need to disprove a Nobel Laureate.

[siddhaam]

He is wrong...There is a whole lot more.

He is just like all the other clever clowns throughout human history who believed that all they saw comprised all there is.

[rintakumpu]

Wrong? Evidence doesn't seem to support that .

And I'm talking about emergence not about God, let's keep our (a)religious sentiments in check -- even as I've given this clip an atheistic context.

Besides, Gell-Mann is far from clown. He's probably the singlemost intelligent person alive today, with a *vast* amount of knowledge from any given topic slash science slash field.

Chances are you wouldn't want to debate him about anything (if your intention is to win).

[siddhaam]

I did say he was a clever clown, did I not.

As to debating with him, I could not lose on this matter.

Yes, he knows a lot of what is known today; but the evidence that he is missing will be known in future time. You cannot imply that he knows what is not yet known; or that what is now known is all there is to know.

I think basically you missunderstand the point I was making.

[rintakumpu]

Gell-Mann is probably very aware about the possibility that he's not right about *some* things and certainly aware of the things he doesn't know, but that doesn't prevent him from asking big questions -- and being *certainly* right on many other topics.

[siddhaam]

He is definitely an important and brilliant figure of today; but where many of these guys go wrong is in imagining they know about things they dont actually know; at that point they are expressing opinion and belief - not knowledge.

Einstein - perhaps the greatest of them all in recent times - knew he did not know, and actively expressed his awe at the deep mystery of the universe and life.

[rintakumpu]

You're absolutely right. I think, however, that even as GM's rhetorics may seem over-confident, blunt even, he is aware of his own ignorance. He's no fool, or clown.

Also, every good scientist should be allowed a little leeway when it comes to hubris. Einstein knew well he was right even before his theory of general relativity was vindicated by empirical evidence.

Probably Gell-Mann is awed by mysteries of life & universe as much as we are and Einstein was. He's just hell-bent on solving them!

[siddhaam]

But do they ever solve the mysteries?

It seems to me the great minds come up with patterns that make sense of the known data; and in exceptional cases, patterns that precede the data. But a hundred years on will those patterns suffice?

For instance: I am convinced that quantum electrodynamics will be viewed in future time as a sort of modern 'Ptolemaic' system. That is: mathematicallly jigged to give correct answers; but based on an incorrect central thesis.

[siddhaam]

Just watched the vid again, and I am struck, once again, by the strenght of my feeling that he is wrong; not only factually but in spirit also.

First, he cannot know what he is talking about. Science has neither the knowledge nor the competence at this time to state what he is stating. That is a fact.

Secondly, the notion that life and consciousness, and GM talking about these matters, is meerly the outcome of accidents, is incoherent. What kind of explanation is that...accidents?

[rintakumpu]

To your first comment: Many mysteries have indeed been solved (Darwin did a terrific job for one!). But the argument you make is basically the same many postmodern critics are so fond of.

If we consider current knowledge "Ptolemaic" in a sense that it could be countered by some future knowledge, we are making zero progress as the future knowledge must also be subject to this very same condition.

Besides, Newtonian physics are still used and useful after Einstein and his successors.

[siddhaam]

Good points. Newton's system while not quite correct, was not Ptolemaic (in my view) and so Einstein's work extended it, but did not replace it. I dont subscribe to the postmodern view. We are making progress, and acquiring real knowledge of a real universe. I suppose my point was that the computational success of QM does not imply its theoretical basis is correct.

[Censeo]

An analogy. Minds + time (a lot of both) made culture, money, democracy, countries and their borders. They are emergent things from many minds from past until now. Doesn't mean that countries and currency is supernatural does it? Nevertheless... we don't need to add anything else to explain these. Democracy contain a totally different meaning than any of the subtracted components.

[KenfromDublin]

Are you doubting the words of the great Murray Gell-Mann mere mortal? ;)

[Censeo]

Nope, I was just elaborating. Just explaining how currency (and other mentioned) can be viewed as an emergent property of minds. It wouldn't exist "out there" if it was only in one persons mind.

[siddhaam]

Good points. Newton's system while not quite correct, was not Ptolemaic (in my view) and so Einstein's work extended it, but did not replace it. I dont subscribe to the postmodern view. We are making progress, and acquiring real knowledge of a real universe. I suppose my point was that the computational success of QM does not imply its theoretical basis is correct.

[Censeo]

I've thought a lot about mind and has considered a lot of views. Ultimately it comes down to metaphysics right? Anyway, none of the perspectives has made the convincing argument to reject the other views yet. Maybe it is because I'm a skeptic and require a lot of certainty. I think it is so. I've never quite adapted any absolute stand on metaphysics. There are convincing arguments from many sides (and bullshit from other sides of course)... I'm post structuralist. It is post modern thing :)

[siddhaam]

Hi. I was replying to rintakumpu, and my comment ended up in the wrong place.

Many aspects of modern life and science would have been metaphysics a couple of hundred years ago - for example radio waves.

The real study of mind requires an open mind. Gell-Mann represents a closed mind approach. Until we 'know' what mind is we cannot make such pronouncements - other than as personal opinions. His language and demeanour is arrogant and angry.

[Tempeldragen]

Read: 'The User Illusjon' of Nørretranders, and "The philosophical foundation of neuro science".

The Dragon