Strong emergence in condensed matter physics

https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.01134

/HT @DrYohanJohn

Strong emergence in condensed matter physics

This paper argues that the physics of condensed matter cannot be fully reduced to the supposedly fundamental quantum mechanical theory for all the atoms of which the system consists. In fact, there are many reasons to reject the idea that the world of physics is causally closed with everything being determined bottom-up by fundamental microscopic laws. This is illustrated by considering how condensed-matter theory is done in practice. It is never done by starting with a microscopic theory for the interaction of all the atoms of the system. Instead, approximations, plausible assumptions, intuitive models, and phenomenological theories are used to mathematically describe and explain the properties of systems that consist of a macroscopic number of particles. I argue that this is not merely a matter of convenience, but that there are fundamental and qualitative differences or even contradictions between the microscopic theory and the theory that is used in practice. The paper includes a list of arguments in favor of strong emergence and top-down causation within the realm of physics, and a response to several widespread objections against this view.

arXiv.org

@FroehlichMarcel @DrYohanJohn
Not my field, but SO CURIOUS to hear impressions from those whose field it is.

In my world (brain research), top down causation is thought by many to violate the laws of physics:
https://philpapers.org/rec/PERMMH

Tuomas K. Pernu, Minding Matter: How not to Argue for the Causal Efficacy of the Mental - PhilPapers

The most fundamental issue of the neurosciences is the question of how or whether the mind and the body can interact with each other. It has recently been suggested in several ...

@NicoleCRust @FroehlichMarcel
The nice thing about this paper is that it shows how top-down causation might even occur within physics. Can physics violate the laws of physics? :)

@DrYohanJohn @FroehlichMarcel
Exactly! Wouldn't that open some floodgates?

Not that everyone is listening to those "physical laws". For instance, @WiringtheBrain is challenging that assertion: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29961596/

I'm also compelled by this "other" way of thinking about top down causation:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34074354/

I'm really curious to hear how everyone is sifting through it all.

Does Neuroscience Leave Room for Free Will? - PubMed

A reductively mechanistic approach to neuroscience suggests that low-level physical laws determine our actions and that mental states are epiphenomena. In this scheme there seems to be little room for free will or genuine agency. I argue here that physical indeterminacy provides room for the informa …

PubMed
@NicoleCRust @DrYohanJohn @FroehlichMarcel @WiringtheBrain
You know, of course:
This book will argue that because interactional types generated by constraints are multiply realizable, a novel form of mereological causation emerges: top-down causation as distributed control coded in analog form.
Juarrero, Alicia. Context Changes Everything (p. 22). MIT Press. Kindle Edition.
@MolemanPeter @DrYohanJohn @FroehlichMarcel @WiringtheBrain
I'm aware but haven't read it yet. I'm really curious to understand whether/how it maps to this argument from an interventionist account of what "cause" means:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34074354/
If anyone has thoughts there, I'd love to hear them!
Top-down causation in psychiatric disorders: a clinical-philosophical inquiry - PubMed

Psychiatry has long debated whether the causes of mental illness can be better explained by reductionist or pluralistic accounts. Although the former relies on commonsense scientific bottom-up causal models, the latter (which typically include environmental, psychological, and/or socio-cultural risk …

PubMed
@NicoleCRust @DrYohanJohn @FroehlichMarcel @WiringtheBrain I will read Kendler and Woodward. Perhaps I am able to come up with some sort of an answer.
@MolemanPeter @DrYohanJohn @FroehlichMarcel @WiringtheBrain
All efforts appreciated! This strikes me as one of the really BIG unanswered question of our times.

@NicoleCRust
You may want to read Juarrero, Alicia. Context Changes Everything.
She explains rather convincingly top-down causation in all kinds of systems, including biological, without laws of physics being violated. A deep understanding of complex dynamical systems is the basis. In fact causation is not the central issue, but context independent and context dependent constraints are. The "old school" idea of interventionist causation in fact vanishes! Kendler and Woodward write
" Some external event happened to each individual ([...] which resulted in a major internal change in them which in turn impacted the risk or course of their disorder. [...] Common clinical (and indeed ‘human’) intuition suggests that these changes were causal." But they do not show or prove that this is not by way of changes at the bottom level. (which I do not belief by the way, see our previous discussion of Kendel's 2005 book).

@DrYohanJohn @FroehlichMarcel @WiringtheBrain
#neuroscience

@MolemanPeter @NicoleCRust @FroehlichMarcel @WiringtheBrain

Does she deal with the supervenience question and/or the issue of causal closure at the micro level?

I myself often wonder about a mechanistic conception of constraints. What counts as a constraint?

For example, a guitar string's tension requires rigidity of the structures holding it stretched. Rigidity is not a micro-property at all. So at the micro-level what does it "look like"? (I'm not sure.)

@DrYohanJohn
I am not smart enough to answer such questions. What counts as a constraint she describes in detail. And she writes somewhere that constraints do not have to be mechanistic (or ARE not mechanistic.... I have to reread...).
@NicoleCRust @FroehlichMarcel @WiringtheBrain