Definition Of Emergence

Definition Of Emergence
-----------------------

In my earlier research I developed a metaphysics whose constants are: deduction, induction, reduction and emergence. These words are used in their usual meaning. I postulated that deduction and induction resemble each other more than deduction resembles emergence, and that deduction and reduction also resemble each other more than deduction resembles emergence. In this context, to "resemble" something is a symmetric relation.

This definition of emergence may be considered empirical in the sense that the only objectively identifiable criterion, according to which the definition may be judged, is that of not making mistakes. More concisely, no mistake has been identified in the definition. Formally, a definition with such a justification is objectively compatible with the 1100 expectation profile[1]. That is to say, the definition hasn't been falsified although it hasn't been verified, either.

I will now upgrade the expectation profile of this definition. As an en passant, I claim that if the upgrade turns out superior, it serves as empirical evidence of the reality of normative quality. Furthermore, said evidence appears to be pure in the sense of including nothing that isn't essential for the logical form of the argument that the evidence improves the soundness of the already obviously valid argument that the evidence not only doesn't falsify but also verifies that normative quality is real.

If normative quality is real, mathematical realism and empiricism are equivalent as valid metaphysics, but that doesn't mean they're valid.

Someone who uses only the 1100 expectation profile can judge himself but cannot judge others. But anyone who cannot judge others cannot impose a definition on another person, because the definition could be incorrect. To impose that definition anyway, without judging others, would insinuate that the person considers himself omniscient. This would usually be considered an insult.

It is possible to impose something on someone without making an error if the imposer has a rational justification for using a 0011 expectation profile with regards to evaluating the outcome of the act of imposing before having committed said act.

The rational justification I present for imposing my definition of emergence is based on an interpretation of moral value so that moral value may manifest as objecthood or waveform so that the permitted waveforms are square wave and triangle wave.

Reduction and emergence are defined in terms of waveform but induction and deduction are defined in terms of objecthood. However, the waveform of objects is defined as square.

As a person who has defined emergence I consider it embarrassing that the word "emergence" resembles "emergency". It's embarrassing because the association insinuates fear yet I'm not afraid of emergence and am not aware of a reason why should I fear that. But I concede that I might be unaware of some real reason to fear emergence. However, I present the hypothesis that I don't have to take any blame for that.

[1] https://pastebin.com/nW21BhT3