[midlightdenight]

There’s probably some places where it’s used where it shouldn’t be, but there is such a thing as “emergent”.

I think it helps to see an easy example first.

Take a great body of water (h2o) on earth, such as the ocean. That water has waves and those waves have amplitudes, as well as other properties such as crests.

A molecule (or even a few) of water (h2o) doesn’t really have these properties. It doesn’t have crests. You could argue it has amplitudes. Crests are an emergent property of large masses of water molecules within a specific system. There’s no crest to a water molecule.

Similarly, for demonstration purposes we could say there’s no waves/crests when gravity is removed.

So when I hear emergent, I imagine properties that show up under certain conditions within a system, that were not present in individual components.

[nemo44x]

There’s a whole lot of “…” between a water molecule and a wave. There is nothing emergent about it. “Emergent” is a bullshit answer.

[jcparkyn]

You seem to have a different definition of "emergent" to the rest of the world. Just because there _is_ an explanation for waves doesn't stop them from being an emergent behaviour.