Strong and weak emergence.¶
Chalmers, D. J. (2006). Strong and weak emergence. The Re-Emergence of Emergence.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Emergence
- Chalmers (2006) clarified this distinction: weak emergence means a property "is derivable from the micro-facts in principle but not in practice," while strong emergence means the macro-level property "cannot be derived even in principle"
This sourceWeak emergence = derivable in principle but not in practice; strong = not derivable even in principle.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Chalmers defines strong emergence as not deducible even in principle, but defines weak emergence as unexpected yet deducible in principle, not as 'not derivable in practice'.
“unexpected given principles of a low-level domain, but is nevertheless deducible in principle”
- Chalmers (2006) clarified this distinction: weak emergence means a property "is derivable from the micro-facts in principle but not in practice," while strong emergence means the macro-level property "cannot be derived even in principle"
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:dd2217ab2b32 · see in the full table