Soft Emergencies and the Whole of Israel
The Rabbi wrote to me in response to a previous question I sent by email that there is a difference between severe emergentism, such as free will – which is not possible, and soft – such as the whole of Israel – which is possible. In both references I encountered (both in the two carts and in the Science of Freedom), the Rabbi brings up the Dog of Fluidity. Both in favor of the possibility of soft possibility and in the negation of the severe. And I wanted to ask if the Rabbi could explain with the Dog of Fluidity what soft emergentism is and how it is possible? Because I understood very well when I read the Rabbi’s explanation in the Science of Freedom regarding the view of fluidity as a description of a group of atoms with a field around each one, the negation of emergentism in a sweeping way…
I’m not sure I understood the question. My argument is that strong emergentism cannot receive scientific support. It is doomed to remain a hypothesis that is possible but not scientifically more plausible than the alternative. The reason for this is that once we are talking about strong emergentism, then by definition there is no way to place the phenomenon on the laws of the micro level, and therefore there is no way to scientifically determine that the phenomenon is not based on an additional substance.
Similarly, with regard to liquidity, we know that it is an emergent phenomenon because all macro phenomena can be explained in terms of micro laws. But that is precisely why there is no example of strong emergentism here.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
