Can randomness be an emergent property?

[Sage]

Mm, right. The only perfect model of reality is reality, and all that. Okay.

I still think it's fine to use the 'weak emergence' definition in everyday speech. For instance, my friend and I work out the mechanics of two-person propane juggling in L4D. He offhandedly uses the term 'emergent gameplay.' Is there a better phrase that isn't extra words/syllables that he should have used?

[infernovia]

Two-person juggling sounds cool. I am most familiar with Advanced Technique (simplified as AT).

I mean, we have had interesting techniques like Wavedashing (not just the Smash kind), Rocket Jumping, Bunnyhopping, Pianoing, Butterfly, without ever using "emergent gameplay."

But hey, it sounds cool right (interestingly, they seem to be overwriting them as "emergent gameplay" now).

[Sage]

I don't really like AT, as far as I can tell it is a smash-only term. But I guess it works.
Of course, two-person juggling was just a sidegame we played while waiting for a guy to load. "Player-made/found minigame" is possibly a phrase. I've been using 'subgame'. I could call them "found subgames" and become a pretentious art movement!

[Hyphen-ated]

I think there is no such thing as "strong emergence", and the concept seems incoherent on its face. If a system seems to have two subsystems, but it is not actually reducible to them, fine. They aren't subsystems that it "emerges" from, they're just partial approximations.

In other words, relativity and quantum are simply both wrong, and we have not discovered what system correctly describes reality.

Originally Posted by infernovia

You are playing the game of life, and suddenly, there is a completely incalculable event. When you made a glider gun, a single cell keeps alternating between dead and alive in the bottom left corner. What is happening? According to the 4 rules you know about the game, there is no way to understand it. It is beyond the 4 rules of the game.

In this case the 4 rules you know are WRONG. The overall system can't magically acquire more properties from "beyond".

Why should we say "the overall system is emergent" instead of "we don't know the rules"?

[infernovia]

In other words, relativity and quantum are simply both wrong, and we have not discovered what system correctly describes reality.

Yes, they are ultimately fictions. This is why "emergence" happens when applying those two models. I already mentioned this many times.

In this case the 4 rules you know are WRONG. The overall system can't magically acquire more properties from "beyond".

Yes, again, it was an analogy. That was the point of it actually. When I say it is beyond the four rules of the game, it means the event was not calculated by them (an error). This is absolutely the same thing you said.

[Hyphen-ated]

So again, why should we say "the overall system is emergent" instead of "we don't know the rules"? Seems to me that the only reason is to avoid losing face by saying "I don't know". So that sense of the word "emergent" is worse than useless.

[infernovia]

Seems to me that the only reason is to avoid losing face by saying "I don't know"

This is untrue, they do say that they don't know. They also tell you why they don't know. Like, it is the number one reason that the word took off in the first place. Emergence does not have much to do with the lack of acknowledgment of scientific error, but it does sound like they want to muddle the issue quite a bit through their "studies."

[garcia1000]

infernovia did you do an analogy which is not analogous? Because that is muddled thinking

[infernovia]

My apologies Garcia, I will be more careful about that.