Emergence and identity

Wikipedia article on Emergence defines this term as:

In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties or behaviors that its parts do not have on their own, and emerge only when they interact in a wider whole.

This term plays a big role in the theory of consciousness: there is a central question: is consciousness fundamental or emergent? The Indian philosophic school of 6th century BCE called "Charvaka" answered this question very literally:

Perhaps the most philosophically significant aspect of Carvaka thought is its theory of consciousness. For most Indian philosophical traditions-whether Vedanta, Samkhya, Buddhism, or Jainism-consciousness is either eternal, spiritual, or at least categorically distinct from matter. The Carvakas rejected all of this. They argued that consciousness is nothing more than a byproduct of the material body, arising when the four elements combine in a specific way.

To illustrate this idea, the Carvakas used a set of vivid analogies. The most famous is the fermentation analogy: just as fermented yeast and other ingredients produce the intoxicating quality in wine-a quality that none of the individual ingredients possess on their own-so too does a particular combination of earth, water, fire, and air give rise to consciousness when they form a living body. According to a detailed account preserved in Madhavacharya’s Sarvadarshanasamgraha and discussed at Wisdom Library, the Carvakas also used the example of betel leaf, areca nut, and lime: when chewed together, they produce a red color, even though none of them is red by itself.

The point of these analogies is straightforward: new properties can EMERGE from specific combinations of things that individually lack those properties. Consciousness, in this view, is an EMERGENT PHENOMENON-SOMETHING THAT ARISES FROM THE RIGHT ARRANGEMENT OF MATTER, not from any immaterial soul or divine spark.

But what is fundamental? 4 elements? One of them is water. To be wet, to be water - how fundamental is it? In 6th century BCE it was absolutely fundamentally, but today scientists know that the chemical element H and another element O don't have properties to be water or wet and only being together in a special configuration they "born" this property. So, water is emergent, not fundamental "element".

Today we know about chemical elements, about elementary particles, so maybe nothing is fundamental, maybe everything is emergent?

Wikipedia claims that:

In the Standard Model of particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a subatomic particle that is not composed of other particles

How long will they be fundamental?

The identity is one of the most difficult problem in philosophy, maybe because it is related to linguistic and cultural traditions mostly but it is expected to be one of the main philosophical concepts. Really, we need a way to identify mental and physical things but it is very difficult in our a changing world where everything flows and nothing stands still. Let's look at Buddhism - it was focused on this question very much too, not only Plato.

A clay jug. It breaks -- is it still a jug? OK, this is where philosophy breaks down. But linguistic is fine, we say "you just broke the JUG". So, it is a jug yet.

You grind the shards into sand and are ready to make clay out of it again -- is it no longer a jug? But where did the jug go then? Did it disappear completely? Or does it continue to exist somewhere? You can make a jug again from new clay. Obviously, the plan (scheme) for the jug exists in your head.

There is material -- clay -- and there is the form (Rūpa - Buddhist term). And Buddhism rejects the idea of Plato that there is a property to be a jug - sabhāva, it's kind of self-deception of our mentality, it is easier for us to think about reality within the concept of own-nature - "jug-ness":

Nothing has svabhāva. Nothing has an inherent, independent essence that makes it what it is.

It is not obvious to identify a jug in some cases, right? Sometimes, it's an obvious jug, but sometimes - we are not sure.

Pluto says - there is a special mental space (realm) where ideas live: Plato's Theory of Forms. It's a space where there are all schemes exist. Even more, ancient religions scale this wider and say there is a place where all plans (future) exist: the fate is written! It leads to questions about free will, destiny, etc. Islam follows Plato's philosophy completely and even it has a holy night Laylat al‑Qadr - the Night of Decree when destiny (al‑qadr) for the coming year is written or finalized and the Qur’an began to be revealed. Shia Islam even has another big holy night: Laylat al‑Qadr al‑Kubrá, when lifelong destiny is written! Let's forget about destiny: what about the realm of ideas of things?

Buddhists see a jug without inherent "jug-ness", as:

• clay
• shaped by causes
• named by convention
• dependent on parts
• dependent on mind
• dependent on conditions

At the same time Qur'an follow Plato's vision - Surah al‑Baqarah 2:30--33:

“And He taught Adam the names, all of them...” (2:31) “He said: ‘Tell Me the names of these, if you are truthful.’” (2:31) “They said: ‘Glory be to You, we have no knowledge except what You have taught us.’” (2:32) “He said: ‘O Adam, inform them of their names.’” (2:33)

and tafsīrs include the essences and purposes of created things. Adam knew it. Angels did not. We can treat it as:

• no such realm
• there is such realm but if you don't need it, the God does not give you access to it

Anyway, let's imagine the situation: humanity died out. But clay remained. Will the next intelligent apes after us (like macaques) create clay jugs? Obviously, yes. So, maybe it is not, but it looks as "JUGS EXIST SOMEWHERE". The reality, water, clay contain inside themselves, being combined on some planet - the concept of a jug. And we still have not 100% way to identify a jug and clay when they flow into each other easily and simply. We are sure in a form. In a linguistic concept, term. But not in a physical reality.

It sounds as meaningless pun. But the language and identification are central instruments of our civilization, mentality, culture.

Folk wisdom, speakings can help, let's rephrase of them:

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then we can treat it is a duck for our current goals"

Context and an intellectual recipient are important components of the treating of "jugs hidden in clay": looking at cracks in stone, people sometimes see chemical formulas in them. If they are formulas, they are information. Otherwise, they are not. Even though the picture is the same, it doesn't change: the same picture can be information or a noise. It depends on you. So, does the hidden jug exist in clay? Or in separate Plato's realm? Or in your head only? How real is information? Does it exist? If no then what about DNA? Is a sign just an agent between 2 intellectual systems? Maybe no any "jugs", but it is more correctly to talk about a general idea: something able to keep water inside itself. If it is not a magnetic field but it is made from clay, we can call it a jug, but it depends on its form anyway.

Maybe only this is our knowledge about reality? Contextual, conventional, temporary linguistic objects that we see in clay around us? Generally speaking, everything emerges from the seething quantum soup around us and within us. Stability and constancy are conditional.

It means that everything is emergent, and nothing can be identified with absolute certainty. All phenomena are highly conditional and arise in the field of information - in our consciousness - precisely as participants in relationships. But this does not mean that, in external reality, space itself emerges only when objects appear in it. Rather, space emerges in our mind because of the objects we perceive within it. Without objects, we cannot identify or conceptualize "space" with the same degree of confidence.