The evidence for strong emergence in chemistry

What I really want to point out is that this is not philosophically different from solving the hydrogen atom - we don't require talk of 'emergence', we just are entering a realm in which the sheer complexity of the maths is overwhelming.

David

My point is that it's an ontological assumption that all chemical properties follow from physical properties. This assumption underlies the reductionist approach in science, particularly in physics and chemistry, where it is believed that complex phenomena can ultimately be understood in terms of simpler, more fundamental principles and entities.

My point is that it's an ontological assumption that all chemical properties follow from physical properties. This assumption underlies the reductionist approach in science, particularly in physics and chemistry, where it is believed that complex phenomena can ultimately be understood in terms of simpler, more fundamental principles and entities.

But it seems to me that the biggest issue here is that even if there really is strong emergence of a sort involved in the quantum world to chemistry interface, this is a kind of lesser strong emergence, where "things" are being physically lab measured on both sides of the chemistry/molecular structure to quantum mechanical interactions relationship.  The parameters and qualities of "Things" on both sides of the chemistry and quantum mechanics system are what is physically measureable and are being so measured and analyzed for evidence of "strong emergence". 

The  case of the physical brain neurology versus consciousness divide is fundamentally different. The properties of consciousness such as qualia, subjective awareness, perception, agency, thought, emotions, etc. have absolutely no physical way of being measured by instrumentation. As previously mentioned, consciousness is in an entirely, fundamentally existentially different and higher realm of reality than the material (which latter can of course be measured by physical instrumentation). The clear implication of this is that any minor "strong emergence" found to exist in the quantum mechanical interaction world and its interface with the chemistry and molecular structure world, doesn't really apply to the debate about the possibility of some sort of "strong emergence" of mind from matter.  The bottom line is that the existential chasm separating mind from matter very much seems to rule out emergentism. At the very least the mind/matter issue is a very very much higher bar for the emergent property principle (whatever this is) to hurdle.

My point is that it's an ontological assumption that all chemical properties follow from physical properties. This assumption underlies the reductionist approach in science, particularly in physics and chemistry, where it is believed that complex phenomena can ultimately be understood in terms of simpler, more fundamental principles and entities.

OK, but why I wonder was the article published in Nature?

To me, the point is that the fact that layers of chemistry seem to 'emerge' out of the impossible complexity of the physics involved, doesn't tell you much at all.

For example, think of the physics that underlies a radio (sorry that is a hackneyed example). Physics provides the principles but it can't explain the content of the music and speech emerging from the radio. The radio is only useful because remote human minds provide content to broadcast on electromagnetic waves.

If we had discovered radios and tried to understand how they worked reductively, we would obviously fail. Even if we understood electromagnetism, that would not explain the content of the programs.

Without human mental input, a radio would be pointless if there are systems that cannot be reductively explained. The obvious example of that is life itself.

The architecture of the human body (or indeed of a tiny insect) depends on an intricate 'message' encoded in its DNA. The body would be utterly pointless without that message, just as the radio is pointless without a suitable signal.

If you still believe that our DNA was derived by successive mutations and selection of the fittest(RM+NS), I suggest you read:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Darwin-Devolves...B079L6RTNT

This presents an extremely well-argued case that our DNA 'message' didn't arise from RM+NS.
I don't like books that mix scientific arguments with religious ones, but you will be glad to know that this book is almost completely about science.

Once you realise that our DNA was designed by some conscious entity (or entities) all discussion of emergence seems a bit pointless!

If you read the book, I'd be happy to debate the contents with you.

David

My point is that it's an ontological assumption that all chemical properties follow from physical properties. This assumption underlies the reductionist approach in science, particularly in physics and chemistry, where it is believed that complex phenomena can ultimately be understood in terms of simpler, more fundamental principles and entities.

If scientists always apply a reductionist approach to explaining reality, that is fine, but it does assume that reality can be reduced ultimately to physics.

However, if reality isn't explained that way then constantly assuming that it can just drives science into a dead end. I think that is happening in parts of the life sciences.

Also, if you always make reductionist assumptions you will be less and less able to persuade other people you are right. Science ends up a bit like chess - you follow the rules and see what you can do.

David

David, reading your last 2 posts, I didn’t find any disagreement with my viewpoints to comment upon.

David, reading your last 2 posts, I didn’t find any disagreement with my viewpoints to comment upon.

I suppose my point is that chemistry can be reduced to a set of impossibly hard sums - so what is the point in calling that emergence. It is rather like a kid in school finding the answers in the back of his textbook and claiming that they 'emerged' in his exercise book (without any working).

However, we will probably never know if the properties of chemicals really are determined that way.

David

David, reading your last 2 posts, I didn’t find any disagreement with my viewpoints to comment upon.

Does that mean you are going to read Michael Behe's book, "Darwin Devolved", or maybe that you have read it already, and we can discuss its contents?

David

Does that mean you are going to read Michael Behe's book, "Darwin Devolved", or maybe that you have read it already, and we can discuss its contents?

David

No, biochemistry and biology are too far removed from my field. However, I do support science seriously contemplating the existence of irreducible phenomena, as this thread suggests.

No, biochemistry and biology are too far removed from my field. However, I do support science seriously contemplating the existence of irreducible phenomena, as this thread suggests.

Well strangely you don't really need to understand biochemistry or biology to explore this subject. Genes are basically digital - C, G, A, T. The chemistry of those four ingredients of DNA barely matters, they are simply labels. They act as a code (but I guess you must know that) so their chemistry is no more relevant than the voltage levels used within your computer to represent 0 and 1.

Although this DNA code is probably used in other ways, its primary use is to represent the linear string of amino acid bases that make up each different type of protein in a living system. The amino acids have names, but again these can usually be thought of simply as labels.

Think of a string of bytes in C, there has to be one byte which just represents the end of the string. In C that is a zero byte, in the genetic code the corresponding string terminator is TGA.

A strand of DNA contains thousands of genes (strings) and there can be gaps between the genes, therefore ATG acts as a start of gene marker if it is at the start of a gene, but otherwise encodes the amino acid methionine.

This scheme could code for 64-2 possible amino acids, but only 22 amino acids are used in life, so some amino acids can be encoded in more than one way. I guess an alternative would generate an "invalid codon" error in such a situation - but living things don't have a suitable output device attached.

Even a cursory reading of that must make you wonder if it could really have 'emerged' or arrived by chance. Remember that until you get to the stage of a single cell, there is no such thing as natural selection to devise such a scheme.

Of course, a computer is made in a special factory, and similarly there is a substantial collection of proteins needed to use the code I have just described. The strange thing is that al the proteins for this mechanism are simply encoded in the same scheme.

I have not got into the work of the DI, but without all the baggage of the debate as to where life came from, would you really say "Aha - that is obviously something that could have happened by chance!?"

If I have whet your appetite I'll continue.

David

Well strangely you don't really need to understand biochemistry or biology to explore this subject. Genes are basically digital - C, G, A, T. The chemistry of those four ingredients of DNA barely matters, they are simply labels. They act as a code (but I guess you must know that) so their chemistry is no more relevant than the voltage levels used within your computer to represent 0 and 1.

Although this DNA code is probably used in other ways, its primary use is to represent the linear string of amino acid bases that make up each different type of protein in a living system. The amino acids have names, but again these can usually be thought of simply as labels.

Think of a string of bytes in C, there has to be one byte which just represents the end of the string. In C that is a zero byte, in the genetic code the corresponding string terminator is TGA.

A strand of DNA contains thousands of genes (strings) and there can be gaps between the genes, therefore ATG acts as a start of gene marker if it is at the start of a gene, but otherwise encodes the amino acid methionine.

This scheme could code for 64-2 possible amino acids, but only 22 amino acids are used in life, so some amino acids can be encoded in more than one way. I guess an alternative would generate an "invalid codon" error in such a situation - but living things don't have a suitable output device attached.

Even a cursory reading of that must make you wonder if it could really have 'emerged' or arrived by chance. Remember that until you get to the stage of a single cell, there is no such thing as natural selection to devise such a scheme.

Of course, a computer is made in a special factory, and similarly there is a substantial collection of proteins needed to use the code I have just described. The strange thing is that al the proteins for this mechanism are simply encoded in the same scheme.

I have not got into the work of the DI, but without all the baggage of the debate as to where life came from, would you really say "Aha - that is obviously something that could have happened by chance!?"

If I have whet your appetite I'll continue.

David

Good summary description. I would just add that this is just the protein coding portion of DNA. There is still all the non-coding DNA, which has progressively been found to embody more and more also essential functions such as information determining organismal form for instance. This was simply called "junk DNA" by Darwinists for years.