Less is Different: Emergence and Reduction Reconciled
Jeremy Butterfield

TL;DR
This paper argues that emergence and reduction are compatible by showing that novel behaviors in physics can be deduced through limits of parameters, while the physically real phenomena occur at finite values.
Contribution
It demonstrates that emergence can be reconciled with reduction by analyzing limiting processes and emphasizing the reality of behaviors at finite parameters.
Findings
Emergent behaviors can be deduced by taking limits of parameters.
Physically real phenomena occur at finite parameter values, not only at limits.
Examples include fractals, superselection, and phase transitions.
Abstract
This is a companion to another paper. Together they rebut two widespread philosophical doctrines about emergence. The first, and main, doctrine is that emergence is incompatible with reduction. The second is that emergence is supervenience; or more exactly, supervenience without reduction. In the other paper, I develop these rebuttals in general terms, emphasising the second rebuttal. Here I discuss the situation in physics, emphasising the first rebuttal. I focus on limiting relations between theories and illustrate my claims with four examples, each of them a model or a framework for modelling, from well-established mathematics or physics. I take emergence as behaviour that is novel and robust relative to some comparison class. I take reduction as, essentially, deduction. The main idea of my first rebuttal will be to perform the deduction after taking a limit of some parameter. Thus…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
