I will take example with turing machin and OO programing, maybe it will be clearer what i'm talking about =) As
the concept of entropy is quasi inexistant with turing machine, and like this we know we are not talking about something mystical
And i think it can interest also shelby because he is into this sort of problematics with language design lol
The problem is this conceptions from metaphysics to organize the world based on fundemental 'objects' with properties, and 'entelechy' , which is abtracted with the OO semantic of having class of objects with properties and 'entelechy' through the alteration of its state by its methods.
So far good, but then the problem is when you want to program interaction between all the different type of object that can be present in the world, with OO programming generally it become quickly a design problem.
...
Either you do a visitor class for each pair of objects, and then each time you add a new type of object, you need to add visitor class for all the combination that the new object can interact with,
but it's still bogus from metaphysical point of view because it mean the interaction between the object are not contained in the object themselves, but applied from the exterior through a visitor class that visit the two object in questions....
This whole design of hard typed object make emergent property very hard to program and conceptualize.
...
I would agree that in Turing machines the concept of entropy is quasi inexistant. Most of the time it is entirely absent.
Turing machines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machineIn his 1948 essay, "Intelligent Machinery", Turing wrote that his machine consisted of:
...an unlimited memory capacity obtained in the form of an infinite tape marked out into squares, on each of which a symbol could be printed. At any moment there is one symbol in the machine; it is called the scanned symbol. The machine can alter the scanned symbol, and its behavior is in part determined by that symbol, but the symbols on the tape elsewhere do not affect the behavior of the machine. However, the tape can be moved back and forth through the machine, this being one of the elementary operations of the machine. Any symbol on the tape may therefore eventually have an innings. (Turing 1948, p. 3[18]
The underlined portion is the key reason for both a lack of emergence and subsequently the lack of conceptual entropy in Turing machines.
In a standard Turing machine the symbols on the tape do not ultimately change the nature of the machine (even if those symbols have been previously read). This is because the typical Turing machine draws from a finite table of instructions which are ultimately fixed and invariant.
Thus the Turing machine with a fixed and finite table is a simple system regardless of how complex and long that table may be unless you allow the table of instructions to be dynamically and permanently altered based on the tape readings.
As programming languages have a fixed set of basic code they are simple Turing machines. However computer programming language in general is something more and represents a complex system. The programmers using them are the equivalent of a tape that applies dynamic updates to the instruction table. Thus over time we have seen the progression from assembly language to C++ as discussed in your links above.
I am not going to be helpful in a technical discussion of how to add emergence to a programmed system as I am not a programmer but I will address one of your points.
You appear to arguing (in the bolded section above) that if the interaction between objects are not contained in the objects themselves but requite an external observer/visitor state then the system is not valid from metaphysical point of view. If I understand you correctly you are arguing that a programmed system must be complete to be metaphysically valid.
Completeness is never possible. For a discussion on this point I would refer you to an excellent write up by Perry Marshall:
The Limits of Science and ProgrammingWithout mathematics we cannot penetrate deeply into philosophy.
Without philosophy we cannot penetrate deeply into mathematics.
Without both we cannot penetrate deeply into anything.
-Leibniz
The example with turing machine is to show you can have non determinism without the concept of entropy
Emergent property are example of non determinist algorithm who can run on turing machine.
It's more that if you want to take a physic model to apply it with coding algorithm, and there is no algebric solution but only algorithmic ones, after it's hard to find the 'correct' model to represent the interaction to have still a minimum of consistency in the high level definition of the thing.
