Footprints of emergence

It is ironic that the management of education has become more closed while learning has become more open, particularly over the past 10-20 years. The curriculum has become more instrumental, predictive, standardized, and micro-managed in the belief that this supports employability as well as the management of educational processes, resources, and value. Meanwhile, people have embraced interactive, participatory, collaborative, and innovative networks for living and learning. To respond to these challenges, we need to develop practical tools to help us describe these new forms of learning which are multivariate, self-organised, complex, adaptive, and unpredictable. We draw on complexity theory and our experience as researchers, designers, and participants in open and interactive learning to go beyond conventional approaches. We develop a 3D model of landscapes of learning for exploring the relationship between prescribed and emergent learning in any given curriculum. We do this by repeatedly testing our descriptive landscapes (or footprints) against theory, research, and practice across a range of case studies. By doing this, we have not only come up with a practical tool which can be used by curriculum designers, but also realised that the curriculum itself can usefully be treated as emergent, depending on the dynamicsbetween prescribed and emergent learning and how the learning landscape is curated

Demystifying Emergence

Are the special sciences autonomous from physics? Those who say they are need to explain how dependent special science properties could feature in irreducible causal explanations, but that’s no easy task. The demands of a broadly physicalist worldview require that such properties are not only dependent on the physical, but also physically realized. Realized properties are derivative, so it’s natural to suppose that they have derivative causal powers. Correspondingly, philosophical orthodoxy has it that if we want special science properties to bestow genuinely new causal powers, we must reject physical realization and embrace a form of emergentism, in which such properties arise from the physical by mysterious brute determination. In this paper, I argue that contrary to this orthodoxy, there are physically realized properties that bestow new causal powers in relation to their realizers. The key to my proposal is to reject causal-functional accounts of realization and embrace a broader account that allows for the realization of shapes and patterns. Unlike functional properties, such properties are defined by qualitative, non-causal specifications, so realizing them does not consist in bestowing causal powers. This, I argue, allows for causal novelty of the strongest kind. I argue that the molecular geometry of H2O—a qualitative, multiply realizable property—plays an irreducible role in explaining its dipole moment, and thereby bestows novel powers. On my proposal, special science properties can have the kind of causal novelty traditionally associated with strong emergence, without any of the mystery

Emergence of Spacetime

Starting from a background Zero Point Field (or Dark Energy) we show how an array of oscillators at the Planck scale leads to the formation of elementary particles and spacetime and also to a cosmology consistent with latest observations.Comment: Latex, 39 page

Flux emergence and coronal eruption

Our aim is to study the photospheric flux distribution of a twisted flux tube that emerges from the solar interior. We also report on the eruption of a new flux rope when the emerging tube rises into a pre-existing magnetic field in the corona. To study the evolution, we use 3D numerical simulations by solving the time-dependent and resistive MHD equations. We qualitatively compare our numerical results with MDI magnetograms of emerging flux at the solar surface. We find that the photospheric magnetic flux distribution consists of two regions of opposite polarities and elongated magnetic tails on the two sides of the polarity inversion line (PIL), depending on the azimuthal nature of the emerging field lines and the initial field strength of the rising tube. Their shape is progressively deformed due to plasma motions towards the PIL. Our results are in qualitative agreement with observational studies of magnetic flux emergence in active regions (ARs). Moreover, if the initial twist of the emerging tube is small, the photospheric magnetic field develops an undulating shape and does not possess tails. In all cases, we find that a new flux rope is formed above the original axis of the emerging tube that may erupt into the corona, depending on the strength of the ambient field.Comment: 5 pages, 3 figures, accepted for publication in A&

Solar Flux Emergence Simulations

We simulate the rise through the upper convection zone and emergence through the solar surface of initially uniform, untwisted, horizontal magnetic flux with the same entropy as the non-magnetic plasma that is advected into a domain 48 Mm wide from from 20 Mm deep. The magnetic field is advected upward by the diverging upflows and pulled down in the downdrafts, which produces a hierarchy of loop like structures of increasingly smaller scale as the surface is approached. There are significant differences between the behavior of fields of 10 kG and 20 or 40 kG strength at 20 Mm depth. The 10 kG fields have little effect on the convective flows and show little magnetic buoyancy effects, reaching the surface in the typical fluid rise time from 20 Mm depth of 32 hours. 20 and 40 kG fields significantly modify the convective flows, leading to long thin cells of ascending fluid aligned with the magnetic field and their magnetic buoyancy makes them rise to the surface faster than the fluid rise time. The 20 kG field produces a large scale magnetic loop that as it emerges through the surface leads to the formation of a bipolar pore-like structure.Comment: Solar Physics (in press), 12 pages, 13 figur

Being Emergence vs. Pattern Emergence: Complexity, Control, and Goal-Directedness in Biological Systems

Emergence is much discussed by both philosophers and scientists. But, as noted by Mitchell (2012), there is a significant gulf; philosophers and scientists talk past each other. We contend that this is because philosophers and scientists typically mean different things by emergence, leading us to distinguish being emergence and pattern emergence. While related to distinctions offered by others between, for example, strong/weak emergence or epistemic/ontological emergence (Clayton, 2004, pp. 9–11), we argue that the being vs. pattern distinction better captures what the two groups are addressing. In identifying pattern emergence as the central concern of scientists, however, we do not mean that pattern emergence is of no interest to philosophers. Rather, we argue that philosophers should attend to, and even contribute to, discussions of pattern emergence. But it is important that this discussion be distinguished, not conflated, with discussions of being emergence. In the following section we explicate the notion of being emergence and show how it has been the focus of many philosophical discussions, historical and contemporary. In section 3 we turn to pattern emergence, briefly presenting a few of the ways it figures in the discussions of scientists (and philosophers of science who contribute to these discussions in science). Finally, in sections 4 and 5, we consider the relevance of pattern emergence to several central topics in philosophy of biology: the emergence of complexity, of control, and of goal-directedness in biological systems

Contextual emergence of intentionality

By means of an intriguing physical example, magnetic surface swimmers, that can be described in terms of Dennett's intentional stance, I reconstruct a hierarchy of necessary and sufficient conditions for the applicability of the intentional strategy. It turns out that the different levels of the intentional hierarchy are contextually emergent from their respective subjacent levels by imposing stability constraints upon them. At the lowest level of the hierarchy, phenomenal physical laws emerge for the coarse-grained description of open, nonlinear, and dissipative nonequilibrium systems in critical states. One level higher, dynamic patterns, such as, e.g., magnetic surface swimmers, are contextually emergent as they are invariant under certain symmetry operations. Again one level up, these patterns behave apparently rational by selecting optimal pathways for the dissipation of energy that is delivered by external gradients. This is in accordance with the restated Second Law of thermodynamics as a stability criterion. At the highest level, true believers are intentional systems that are stable under exchanging their observation conditions.Comment: 27 pages; 4 figures (Fig 1. Copyright by American Physical Society); submitted to Journal of Consciousness Studie

Emergence, Function and Realization

“Realization” and “emergence” are two concepts that are sometimes used to describe same or similar phenomena in philosophy of mind and the special sciences, where such phenomena involve the synchronic dependence of some higher-level states of affairs on the lower-level ones. According to a popular line of thought, higher-level properties that are invoked in the special sciences are realized by, and/or emergent from, lower-level, broadly physical, properties. So, these two concepts are taken to refer to relations between properties from different levels where the lower-level ones somehow “bring about” the higher-level ones. However, for those who specialise in inter-level relations, there are important differences between these two concepts – especially if emergence is understood as strong emergence. The purpose of this chapter is to highlight these differences