I understand emergence as a true extension to a system, which doesn't evolve by unknown facts rather by something really new: The sum is more than the sum of its parts and not We don't know all parts.BillTre said:But how is that ruling it out as an emergent phenomena?
(for the record, cause wrong language: http://www.zeit.de/karriere/beruf/2016-09/vier-tage-woche-test-unternehmen-bericht-flexibilitaet)Google and Amazon are already offering their employees the four-day work week. Also in Germany there are more and more companies, which extend the weekend.
a bit differently.fresh_42 said:The sum is more than the sum of its parts
mean?fresh_42 said:a true extension to a system
But that depends on just _how_ those days are used ;).fresh_42 said:(for the record, cause wrong language: http://www.zeit.de/karriere/beruf/2016-09/vier-tage-woche-test-unternehmen-bericht-flexibilitaet)
What if thinking back to Godelian terms, you have emergent phenomena happening due to entailment of a smaller system or "state space" by a larger one? What boggles my mind is whether the "set of axioms" or "laws of nature" have to be consistent with the smaller system by the larger one, or if they interact.fresh_42 said:I understand emergence as a true extension to a system, which doesn't evolve by unknown facts rather by something really new: The sum is more than the sum of its parts and not We don't know all parts.
Is this some sort of (possibly-inverted) Compactness theorem in Logic: If there is a model of finite cardinality then you can find one of infinite cardinality? Or induction : thruth of finite cases creates emergent result for infinite sets? Also probably nonsense.Posy McPostface said:What if thinking back to Godelian terms, you have emergent phenomena happening due to entailment of a smaller system or "state space" by a larger one? What boggles my mind is whether the "set of axioms" or "laws of nature" have to be consistent with the smaller system by the larger one, or if they interact.
I'm probably spouting nonsense.
Thanks!
I doubt it's nonsense from you; but, fascinating stuff either way. Hope someone else more versed than myself can clarify whatever I'm toying with here.WWGD said:Is this some sort of (possibly-inverted) Compactness theorem in Logic: If there is a model of finite cardinality then you can find one of infinite cardinality? Or induction : thruth of finite cases creates emergent result for infinite sets? Also probably nonsense.
I mean, the truth of the proposition for infinite sets ( for all Naturals) sort of emerges from both the properties of the Naturals as well as the method of induction. The truth may not hold in sets with different "organization" , e.g., without Well-ordering.Posy McPostface said:I doubt it's nonsense from you; but, fascinating stuff either way. Hope someone else more versed than myself can clarify whatever I'm toying with here.
This is of great interest to me. It's my impression that every higher ordinal set has to be consistent with every lower one (Compactness theorem as you stated) for at the very least soft-determinism to be true. Otherwise, the landscape of mathematical logic seems awfully strange?WWGD said:The truth may not hold in sets with different "organization" , e.g., without Well-ordering.
Although you may also argue that beyond a certain (cardinality) threshold (together with properties of sets) some new properties emerge: like having equinumerous proper subsets, or losing decidability from sentence logic to FOL: Or maybe we can somehow go ( using some sort of categorical inverse- or otherwise limit) from 2-valued logic in Sentence Logic to 3-valued ,...and arrive at (emerge) infinite-valued logic (Probability theory)?Posy McPostface said:This is of great interest to me. It's my impression that every higher ordinal set has to be consistent with every lower one (Compactness theorem as you stated) for at the very least soft-determinism to be true. Otherwise, the landscape of mathematical logic seems awfully strange?
Well, the compression theorem for computational complexity theory states:WWGD said:Although you may also argue that beyond a certain (cardinality) threshold (together with properties of sets) some new properties emerge: like having equinumerous proper subsets, or losing decidability from sentence logic to FOL: Or maybe we can somehow go ( using some sort of categorical inverse- or otherwise limit) from 2-valued logic in Sentence Logic to 3-valued ,...and arrive at (emerge) infinite-valued logic (Probability theory)?
Hey, these new ideas do not usually arrive ready-made, one has to spout some nonsense and see if something sticks.
Well, no, I see it differently. Something may or may not emerge depending on the way things are organized/the intrinsic properties. In some cases parts will fizzle.Posy McPostface said:Well, the compression theorem for computational complexity theory states:
The theorem states that there exists no largest complexity class, with computable boundary, which contains all computable functions.
So, no go?
WWGD said:Well, no, I see it differently. Something may or may not emerge depending on the way things are organized/the intrinsic properties. In some cases parts will fizzle.
Even a brief look on only Wikipedia offered a huge variety and complexity within philosophy (the scientific version, not grandma's) and even almost all other natural sciences and mathematics. A label such as mysticism or any other is doomed to ignore this complexity. I very much doubt that we can even scratch the surface here.Posy McPostface said:I don't know. It makes the fact of emergent properties noncomputable to some degree, thus mysticism?
fresh_42 said:A label such as mysticism or any other is doomed to ignore this complexity.
I thought of something like this:Ibix said:From Random Walks In Science:
Oh, Langley invented the bolometer.
It's really a kind of thermometer.
It can measure the heat
From a polar bear's feet
At a distance of half a kilometre.
Random enough?
Personally, I would be very interested in such topics, but fact is, it is philosophy and discussions in the past revealed, that they are endless, mostly incompetent and if they were about physics at a comparable level, we would immediately close them as substandard. I also think that they were better placed in a technical forum, based on some real peer-reviewed publications which can be read by us, and eventually closer to mathematics (or physics) as the term "emergent phenomena" alone is far too unspecific. I do respect philosophy, so whatever can usually be read here is not.Posy McPostface said:I was just interested in the implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, which are hard to find outside of academia. For example, some physicists believe that reality is computable, eg. the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle. Would the above discussion about the compression theorem and Godel be an explanation that that would be impossible?
fresh_42 said:Personally, I would be very interested in such topics, but fact is, it is philosophy and discussions in the past revealed, that they are endless, mostly incompetent and if they were about physics at a comparable level, we would immediately close them as substandard. I also think that they were better placed in a technical forum, based on some real peer-reviewed publications which can be read by us, and eventually closer to mathematics (or physics) as the term "emergent phenomena" alone is far too unspecific. I do respect philosophy, so whatever can usually be read here is not.
There was a young lady called Bright,fresh_42 said:I thought of something like this:
"Oh freddled gruntbuggly,
Thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee.
Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes,
And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts
With my blurglecruncheon, see if I don't!" (Jeltz)
https://www.physics.harvard.edu/academics/undergrad/limericksIbix said:There was a young lady called Bright,
Who traveled far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way,
And came back the previous night.
Furthermore, it is senseless. They most likely won't tell the true reasons, and any answer he gets is unlikely to be applicable to further interviews, because of the particularity of the situation. He basically expects a personality study about his person. Good chances he could achieve better results by asking a friend.WWGD said:I tried to convince this acquaintance that going to talk unanounced with the HR people in a company he applied to which did not hire him to ask what they saw wrong in him may not be a good idea. They may suspect he is upset over his rejection and may call security or even police. Bad idea, I say. I tried.
Tom.G said:And the harm is where?
In my experience, he won't even get an answer from HR. HR just does the paperwork. Unless he was applying for a job in HR itself, only the department he was applying for would know the answer.Tom.G said:
- He didn't get the job.
- It bugs him.
- He is trying for a post mortem.
- He probably won't get a realistic answer.
- He certainly won't if he doesn't ASK.
- Downside, nothing. (He has already been turned down.)
Upside, maybe he will learn something useful, even if the lesson is 'no response'.
And the harm is where?
WWGD hasn't said whether his friend even got past the HR interview, or what kind of job he was applying for.fresh_42 said:They most likely won't tell the true reasons, and any answer he gets is unlikely to be applicable to further interviews, because of the particularity of the situation. He basically expects a personality study about his person. Good chances he could achieve better results by asking a friend.
But there is also the obvious issue I told this guy about:jim hardy said:WWGD hasn't said whether his friend even got past the HR interview, or what kind of job he was applying for.
Chances are he'd do better to call whoever interviewed him last and ask how he could improve his resume to make it more attractive .
I always asked applicants, who by the time they got to me had already survived the HR screening, "Do you change your own oil and sparkplugs?"
Maintenance and Marketing managers are not looking for the same personality traits.
He needs to go to the source to get a meaningful answer.
old jim
WWGD said:3) If they are available (free time to meet him): Will he/they be willing to tell him why ? If so, will they be able to give him "actionable " advice?Many don't give advice because of fear of either reprisals or lawsuits.
WWGD said:4) Like Fresh_Meister said: Will the advice they gave him apply to other companies/job searches?
WWGD said:But there is also the obvious issue I told this guy about:
0) He could be using his time in many other ways. He may have to wait to see someone. How long will he be willing to wait for?
1) Will acquaintance know who it was (may be more than one person) who made the decision.
2) If he finds out who it was who made the decision, he/they may not be around and/or available that day. o
3) If they are available (free time to meet him): Will he/they be willing to tell him why ? If so, will they be able to give him "actionable " advice?Many don't give advice because of fear of either reprisals or
lawsuits.
4) Like Fresh_Meister said: Will the advice they gave him apply to other companies/job searches?
Well, no, a phone call seems reasonable, I agree, but a personal visit does not, for the reasons above. You need to figure out who made the decision, make sure they are available to speak in person, that they are willing to say something on the record ( difficult for most to be critical of others they don't know personally) without fearing reprisals or hostility.jim hardy said:Well, it's defeatism to think up reasons for not investing a phone call.
Most folks will respond to a sincere request for help.
The barriers we put up out of ' fear of rejection' are our own worst enemy.
old jim