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?

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?

dna expression and materials shared with aliens or

something todo with art and lists?

Was just casually chatting with a friend. Speculating regarding Other intelligent beings in this universe. She said that they’ll probably have some stuff shared with us, based on materiality we share.
In this view, earth based life shares Genetic and dna – type – history. This history is of various expressions by the dna and genetic codes that evolved. However, in case of “aliens” (there should be a better term for that..), the shared element is that of pure materiality.. And perhaps the usage of these materials..

This idea seems interesting for me, leaving aside the true/false question, because it seems to perhaps open something regarding how dna and other code might be imagined. It seemed so easy for my friend to imagine these as bursting with meanings. In an abstract potential sense. The idea of shared materials however, seemed less meaningful, just materials. I have oxygen and so are you. You use it to see, I use it to breath/energise.
Very different Meaning/Usage/Expression of oxygen – but we share the material.. ( friend finds comfort in sharing.. am trying to write this within her parameters..)

In that sense perhaps the material of “porridge-finger” is Only a material where/when/if is used/linked to stuff as their material which, for simplicity’s sake, isn’t required to be perceived differently – at that particular rhythm/sequence.
However, “porridge-finger” is not “finger-porridge” despite the fact both might be made of “porridge” & “a finger”..
That is because other elements involved.. eg the energy of materials (eg finger as a material has a certain energy. it will fold and come apart very quickly if we need to open it, however so long as that isn’t an issue – finger is cool. eg licking fingers, typing fingers, not the cellular tissue on the flesh around the bones, etc.. unless that other link lingo is required by time, space and least-resistance..?), time sequence of the link between these elements, the space linking between them and search from the least (required? linked? networked? found?) resistance perspective..? (..or is it a research?)

Here’s a sort of current example.. I was reading about Higgs and his views of contemporary academic life.
One of the comments is:
Conservative party makes in trying to get us out of Europe I don’t understand how a country could get out of Europe.
Not sure exactly what the commenter means, but suppose they talk about geography.. In that case, for example, the Europe, is a geo-entity that might differ from EU (european-union), which we sometimes are fine by just calling it europe..