"Emergent" as used here is akin to how physicists use the word. "Emergent" as you interpret it (with the implication of something deeper) is more akin to how philosophers use the word.
Almost every discussion I've read in philosophy over emergence is tedious and hard to see any use, whereas in physics it's intuitive and descriptively useful. My sense is that it's better to follow the physics style and stress there's no metaphysics implied.
Where do you see this kind of Meaning in physics?
In physics we have of example the Emergence of fluid dynamics and is clearly defined as a behaviour or property of system that does not derive simply from the sum of combination of it's subsystems. (it's not observed in small quantities of particles and it's not inherent to the particles)
We have for example the Emergent behaviour of a school of fish Swimming in a new behaviour that is not observed on few fish etc. That is the mental model of "Emergence" most of us are familiar with. A new behaviour that can not be observed or "explained by" the sum of the parts of system.
There is no metaphysics here.
What is observed here is not new or different behaviour, it's simple a more precise and extensive version of the same behaviour.
What is observed here is like comparing a 2Mpix resolution camera with a 12Mpix low light camera and saying that seeing more details in photo taken at 8pm is an emergent property of the camera because those details where not there in the previous version.
We are in agreement. Your definition of system properties that do not derive simply from the sum of the elements is what the article is really talking about. That's closer to the physicist meaning.
No it's not, you cleary are misinterpretting the article.
>we defined an emergent ability as an ability that is “not present in small models but is present in large models.”
models are taken (because there is no other way) as black boxes and the only comparison is made between the models not between a model and it's subsystems (because again noone knows the "sub-systems" of a model, those are just some derived weights that can not be ascribed any meaning). this is precisly the 2Mpx camera and the 12Mbpix camera comparison not the fluid dynamics vs particle movements comparison.
> "Emergent" as used here is akin to how physicists use the word. "Emergent" as you interpret it (with the implication of something deeper) is more akin to how philosophers use the word.
No, if you had read even the first paragraph of the article, you'd have seen that the person you're responding to isn't "interpreting" the article, they're quoting the article.
Don't correct people when you don't know what you're talking about. You haven't read the article so you're in no position to talk about the article.
This is the level of discussion I've come to expect from Hacker News, unfortunately.
I agree with physics notion of emergence used in the article. A single water molecule does not make water it’s properties of density, viscosity, specific heat and etc. There needs to be large number of molecules when such properties emerge.
Almost every discussion I've read in philosophy over emergence is tedious and hard to see any use, whereas in physics it's intuitive and descriptively useful. My sense is that it's better to follow the physics style and stress there's no metaphysics implied.