Philosopher said What ?

          Dr. Paul Humphreys provides a brief introduction to the concepts of Generative Atomism, and Reductionist's methods. He also describes Epistemological Emergence, and Ontological Emergence.

          Reductionist's methods were successful in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Logic, and Computer Sciences. Please notice the word "were": We can still get away with using a generative atomistic approach as long as we don't look too close. This is an important point because classical philosophers are unable to grasp many critical aspects of reality.
          Dr. Paul Humphreys describes Epistemological Emergence as occurring when we don't have enough information, or the situation is too complex for us to use generative atomism to describe a given process. So, according to him, natural processes unfold according to our understanding of those processes. That seems a bit too anthropocentric for my taste. He says Epistemological Emergence occurs when our knowledge of a "future event cannot be reduced to a prediction from a small set of basic principles in the way that we can predict a solar eclipse." He seems to be saying "Predicting a solar eclipse." is fundamentally different than "Predicting our exit from the cow pasture." This distinction is rendered null as soon as you realize these two processes differ in scale along the dimension of time. Over an appropriately large time scale we cannot predict the occurrence of a solar eclipse any more than we can predict our exit from the cow pasture. Viewed from the other direction over an appropriately small time scale we can predict our exit from the cow pasture with the same facility as we can predict a solar eclipse.
          I am not attacking Dr. Paul Humphreys per se. It is the culture of philosophers that fail to inform themselves of their subject matter that triggers my ire. His presentation represents a failure to understand the need to choose an appropriate scaling with respect to each physical phenomena under discussion. The time scale for tracking celestial alignments is quite different from the time scale for negotiating a queue.
          Even today, we use Reductionist Methods (based upon Generative Atomism) extensively in the Physical Sciences. We do so only when the errors inherent in the process are acceptable for the task. So with care we proceed knowing full well we may need to modify our protocol at any moment. If our simulations run for too much time, expand to encompass too much space, or stretch some other parameter too far, Reductionist Methods fail. In all cases Reductionist Methods will ultimately fail, this is a fact of life, it is inherent to the very nature of, well, nature (I like to use the term "Reality").
          It would seem, given the above, Epistemological Emergence might be a viable alternative to Reductionist Methods. The Achilles Heel of Epistemological Emergence is a bit subtle, and the fact is, a semi-classical approach serves only to mask the fatal flaw. The semi-classical approach to which I refer is codified as the (name of a town, famous person, or university) Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the Ithaca Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, et cetera are simply rhetorical devices to allow us to do useful calculations and ignore the embarrassing truth: We have yet to find a way to understand Quantum Mechanical processes. In fact we may never be able to understand Quantum Mechanical processes, and for a very important reason.
          Dr. Paul Humphreys states, "Examples of Ontological Emergence are rare and we should not look for them in the everyday world." This statement is profoundly silly: It is so very wrong, in fact it is so very incorrect as to be not even wrong (paraphrasing Wolfgang Pauli). We are not constantly aware of the air that surrounds us, but it is always there. We ride bicycles without needing to attend to the critical details that determine a successful ride. We aren't constantly aware of our heartbeat, or the ordinary sounds that permeate our environment, but they are ever present. Examples of Ontological Emergence are ubiquitous, we simply don't notice them.
          Dr. Paul Humphreys example of covalent bonding is fatally flawed by the fact that the electrons in isolated hydrogen atoms to not possess an individual identity that is lost when the covalent bond is formed. Said another way: Electrons are not little balls orbiting a nucleus. The only time an electron even comes close to approximating that cartoonish depiction is when it is in a very high energy state. When in a high energy state wherefrom it can easily escape the atom it very closely resembles a moon orbiting a planet, if you squint real hard, and stick your tongue out and bite it.
          "It is sometimes suggested that human consciousness is an example of Ontological Emergence." Dr. Paul Humphreys doesn't understand enough to realize human consciousness is an example of Ontological Emergence. The very foundation of brain function is the electrochemical processes that emerge from the Quantum Mechanical processes in the atoms that comprise the material contained in our craniums: Virtually a definition of Ontological Emergence.
          If you would like to understand how a brain functions, or how evolutions produces us, don't ask a Classical Philosopher, ask a Modern Natural Philosopher.

Thanks to the kind readers here I found this:

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hByJBdQXjXU]

We ride bicycles without needing to attend to the critical details.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0]