Deus Sive Qualia II - Emergence

“Emergence of the Gaps” An Explanation without power

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts," Aristotle famously declared. But what if this widely accepted notion of emergence – particularly when applied to consciousness – is merely filling our gaps in understanding, much like the "God of the gaps" once did for natural phenomena we couldn't yet explain?

Let us embark on a journey through the concept of emergence, and discover why it might be more of a placeholder for our ignorance than a genuine explanation for consciousness.

Consider a child's first encounter with division. They learn that dividing makes numbers smaller – it's intuitive, it makes sense. Then they encounter fractions: ½ divided by ¼ equals 2. Suddenly, division can make numbers larger? This seems to violate everything they understood about division. One might be tempted to call this an "emergent property" of division, but in reality, it simply reveals the limitations of our initial understanding.

This pattern repeats throughout the history of science. When chemistry couldn't explain certain reactions, Berzelius invoked a mysterious "catalytic force." When biology couldn't explain life, vitalism proposed an emergent "life force." Yet as our understanding deepened, these "emergent" forces gave way to mechanical explanations. Today, consciousness stands as perhaps the last great fortress of emergence thinking.

But there's a deeper problem with emergence as an explanation for consciousness. It essentially proposes that consciousness – the qualitative experience of being – somehow springs forth from purely quantitative physical processes. It suggests that if you arrange matter in just the right way, subjective experience magically appears, like a rabbit from a hat. This is not just mysterious; it borders on the mathematically impossible.

The Mathematics of More: When Infinity Meets Reality

Could mathematics offer us a way out of our emergence paradox? At first glance, certain mathematical curiosities seem to suggest the possibility of getting "something from nothing" – precisely what emergence claims to do with consciousness.

Consider Hilbert's Hotel, that famous infinite hotel where every room is occupied. When a new guest arrives, the hotel manager simply asks each guest to move to the next room: guest 1 moves to room 2, guest 2 to room 3, and so on. Suddenly, room 1 is free. Through this mathematical sleight of hand, we've apparently created space where there was none. The equation "∞ + 1 = ∞" seems to validate emergence's central claim that wholes can be greater than the sum of their parts.

Even more dramatically, the Banach-Tarski paradox shows how a sphere can theoretically be cut into six “pieces” and reassembled into two complete spheres of the same size. No stretching, no additional material – just clever mathematical manipulation of infinite sets. It's as if mathematics itself is telling us that we can get two from one, much like emergence suggests consciousness springs forth from purely physical processes.

But here's the crucial insight: these mathematical paradoxes only work in the realm of the actually infinite. In our physical universe, we only ever encounter potential infinity – the possibility of always adding one more, but never reaching an actual infinite quantity. The space between two galaxies can keep expanding, but at any given moment, it's finite. A computer can keep counting upward forever, but at any instant, it's reached a finite number.

This limitation reveals the fundamental problem with using these mathematical paradoxes to justify emergence. In the real world, we can't actually implement Hilbert's Hotel's infinite room shuffle or perform the Banach-Tarski sphere splitting. These paradoxes remain purely mathematical curiosities, valid in abstract realms but inapplicable to physical reality.

And this is precisely where emergence as an explanation for consciousness fails. Like trying to perform Banach-Tarski's sphere splitting with a real ball, it attempts to conjure something (subjective experience) from nothing (purely objective physical processes). The mathematics of infinity might allow for such magic in abstract realms, but our physical universe operates under stricter constraints.

If we can't rely on mathematical infinity to bridge the explanatory gap, we're left with a stark choice: either deny the reality of consciousness (an impossible position for any conscious being to maintain) or accept that consciousness must be fundamental rather than emergent. Once again, panqualic thinking offers the most coherent path forward.

The Qualitative Leap: Why More is Not Different

Think about it: How can any arrangement of non-experiencing things create experience itself? It's like trying to create color by arranging black and white pixels, or deriving value from purely factual statements. There's an explanatory gap that no amount of complexity can bridge.

The weakness of emergence becomes clearer when we examine quantum mechanics – often cited as another example of "strong emergence." Yes, quantum systems display behaviors that seem irreducible to their parts. But perhaps this irreducibility points not to emergence, but to fundamental properties we've yet to understand. Just as quantum entanglement hints at deeper connections in physical reality, consciousness might point to fundamental experiential aspects of reality itself.

This brings us to a crucial insight: If we reject emergence as an explanation (because it's essentially "magic" dressed in scientific language), and we accept that consciousness exists (which our direct experience confirms), then we're led inevitably toward panpsychism. If consciousness cannot emerge from non-conscious elements, then consciousness must be fundamental – present in some form at the very foundation of reality.

This doesn't mean that electrons have human-like experiences or that atoms fall in love. Rather, it suggests that the capacity for experience – the raw feel of existence – is an intrinsic aspect of reality, just like mass, charge, or spin. Complex consciousness, like human experience, would then be more like a symphony arising from many simple tones, rather than a ghost mysteriously emerging from the machine.

The "emergence of the gaps" argument has served its purpose in the history of science, allowing us to temporarily bracket difficult questions. But just as "God of the gaps" gave way to deeper scientific understanding, perhaps it's time for "emergence of the gaps" to give way to a more fundamental understanding of consciousness.

In fact, the principle of conservation – that nothing truly new can come into existence from nothing – supports this view. Just as energy cannot be created or destroyed, perhaps the capacity for experience is also conserved, present from the beginning, woven into the very fabric of reality.

This perspective not only solves the hard problem of consciousness but does so without invoking magical thinking or explanatory gaps. It suggests that consciousness, rather than being an emergent property of complex systems, is the intrinsic nature of physical reality itself – the "inside view" of what physics describes from the outside.

As we move forward in our exploration of consciousness, perhaps we need to be more willing to question our assumptions about emergence. Instead of asking how consciousness emerges from non-conscious matter, we might ask: What if consciousness never needed to emerge because it was there all along?

---

Next: "The Mathematics of Experience: Mapping the Qualitative Dimension"