[mike741]

> why can't statistics alone generate emergent phenomena?

because there is no generative mechanism in the definition of "statistics" with which to generate anything.

> What convinces you that the human brain isn't also just statistics at a massive scale?

Because the human brain created the concept of "statistics" so if statistics created the human brain this would mean statistics created statistics, leading to infinite regress.

[titaniczero]

But the idea that the brain functions on a basis of complex statistical processes doesn't imply that statistics created the brain itself, it just suggests that the brain's processes can be modeled/understood through the lens of statistical methods. Statistics is just how we describe a tool we invented to analyze observable data, the brain could be a similar tool and it doesn't need to be the same tool.

It's akin to saying that we created the concept of "physics", yes we created it, and physics govern, for example, how a car moves, but it doesn't mean our concept of physics created the car or physics itself, we just use physics to describe and understand the car's movement.

Maybe statistics can't generate anything, but if you imagine everything we can do as very complex, unimaginable multi-dimensional functions that can generate outputs based on inputs, we can use statistics to find functions that fit any real (ground truth) function in the observable universe.

[mike741]

> the idea that the brain functions on a basis of complex statistical processes doesn't imply that statistics created the brain itself

Agreed. However, the phrasing and context of the question did imply the brain is "just statistics" and somehow emerged from statistics. If we are to interpret this as "the brain functions on just statistics" then the answer is still "it does not" because the brain can be said to function on countless different systems simultaneously, such as pure counting, algebra, calculus, etc which would mean that its not "just statistics."

> It's akin to saying that we created the concept of "physics"

This will boil down to our exact definitions, but most people conceive of physics as having a generative mechanism. If something were to ever be "created", like an atom or a new car, we would retroactively declare it to have been created in accordance with "the laws of physics." We wouldn't make the same retroactive assessment with something like "the rules of chess" because there is nothing in the rules of chess justifying such a creation. So we choose to give physics a special status.

> we can use statistics to find functions that fit any real (ground truth) function

A given statistical model might fit a function of the universe, but so might other models. Physics describe a function of the universe, chemistry describes a function of the universe, biology describes a function of the universe, politics describe a function of the universe. Describing a ground truth is one thing, elevating the description itself to the status of ground truth is another.