Skip to content

an urgent sequence of emergence?

Reading a bit about the emergence of matter yet anti-matter material in a collider – a majorana particle with these kind of maths – got me into emergence again.

To recap:
A new, un seen before, sequence/particle that is both matter #& anti matter has emerged in a collider. The Emergence bit here is very important because this particle can Be – can emerge – only inside a collider with certain frequencies to collide and emerge as that particular sequence.

This, I think, illustrates a few issues todo with emergence, one being the Nature of Being an emergent element/particle. As such, it is perceived in some minds, as a mark of possible non-being, a possible mirage who’s real material being – who’s ontology – is/are other stuff. A reflection in a mirror as being something other than itself – hence sort of inferior or baseless at best.

In that sense, I might suggest a different question sequence linked to emergence and emergent properties – replacement, conflation and immanence?

Take Shadows for example. Plato thought of shadows as pointers for a different Real. My shadow points to me, and I rather than the shadow is real. In my view this isn’t the necessaries case. I think that it can be argued that shadows have indeed their own presence unique to them that is independent of the elements that come together for the shadow to emerge. We tend to use that presence when the sun is too hot and we need a shade, no?

However, if we take the property/element of Like and liking something/one/stuff, here I think we get into more shady sequences of seeming emergent properties that are actually reflective of and from elements, but do not have an immanent life/being of their own. Hence Like and dislike are very fickle and dependent on power to maintain certain moral sequences.
I like my shoes.
The liking of my shoes might seem in and of itself.. Hummm.. No.. Mistake..
Actually, isn’t the liking of my shoes, in its very being, dependant upon, err, the shoes and me? Does it not, in itself point to the liking Not being having an immanence from its own?
Liking/dis-liking is immanent only for the significance of the linking between X and Y – me and shoes – not the meanings.. no?
However, one might develop a certain feeling towards an object. I am not comfortable with forks in general and particular dishes in particular. This feelings though are not stuff that can be used outside of Me. They might be immanent to me – but not to the world I am linking with. In that sense, perhaps, it can be argued that these are different properties to shadows, colours etc..??

Questions re ontology of meanings might be relevant here?
eg
http://swr.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/9.abstract

Why am i using immanence, conflation and replacement? Perhaps these should be questioned next time emergence come to mind? Mind?
Mind might well be an emergent property, no? Lets assume it is. However, isn’t the mind – and we need to better define the range of trajectories when using the term – in the sense of being aware of one’s own thought and sensations, or being conscious of time passing, isn’t this kind of mind like the matter-anti-matter both dependent and independent of elements, but can be treated as a whole of its own?

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.