Emergence - Complexity from Simplicity, Order from Chaos (1 of 2)

4:34

path of the least resistance,.. same goes for a stream of water.

So is this like the anti-chaos theory?

Nope. This is chaos theory. Read Chaos: a new science. It will change the way you view just about everything in life forever.

I started seeing the beauty in the ordinary things around me. Smoke, dripping faucet, traffic, ocean waves, etc...

"I think the flocking is reducible to individual behavior." (and other similar statements)

Either you've changed your position or you don't have a clear understanding of the concept of emergence (see Wikipedia). It is ALWAYS implied or explicit, when using the term, that the emergent structure CAUSALY feeds back to the individuals. Without the complex structure, no causality. No, science isn't supreme, but it helps us work with concepts and fundamental features of existence constructively.

On the "GOD" part, I don't know if you're serious or not, but let's imagine you're serious. If I were GOD, I would create an agent to act in my stead to control atoms, molecules and the results of their group interactions. Further, I would allow this group control mechanism to work on higher and higher levels too, turning molecules into states of matter, birds into flocks, and neurons into thought. Once engaged, my agent would be continuous and non-reducible as long as the group interacted.

But, lol, there's really no need to bring "GOD" into the picture. Easy enough just to say "fundamental feature".

I THINK you have tacitly admitted to the necessity of a third causal force. If so, I have achieved more than I thought I would. I am willing to call it a truce at this point. I won't argue with you labeling it "fundamental feature". I don't think we have any basic disagreement about it. I think the tension is that you feel science is supreme. While I think the metaphyics is more important. A difference in interests perhaps.

Oops! Made a comment, but it doesn't appear as a response to your comment. Please check the video to see it.

Also, asking the question "where do the rules or the causal force come from" is no more profound than asking any question about nature. If it's fundamental then it's of the same profundity as gravity and all other forces. Where do they all come from? Well, take your pick of belief. Science knows it can't answer that. All that's known for sure is that the forces and we exist.

Better said as "That's not the purpose of science. The purpose of science is to make sense and constructive rules out of what it can.". So, no, the science perspective is not supreme, but the scientific method is a safe bet when you're ready to advance beyond speculation. Just as fulfilling, more so, I think. True, a matter of interests.

:D Yeah, maybe. The standard model of physics, which accounts for the fundamental particles and their interactions via electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces, has been verified by untold high-energy physics experiements. Yet the standard model is not complete. We have gravity, dark matter, and dark energy to account for. The story is unfinished. Emergence MAY be fundamental. And how about entanglement... it is a real phenomenon, but a phenomenon without explanation or reduction.