A Paper that is part of Stanford Encyclopedia was foundational in my devising Particle Level Emergence, Limitation Philosophy’s concept of being, and the emergence of limitless personality from the operations of the boundless universe.
The technical aspects such a coincidence and dependence are best explained by reading their source.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy>Emergent-Properties
This post is nuanced and intended to give readers a general idea and introduce the very deep philosophical nature of emergence. The Stanford encyclopedia article shows this-emergence has some deeper aspects than the “sum is greater than the parts” rote phrase.
An excerpt from
SOCRATES AND HIS DIVINE SIGN
Anaxagoras says, “your personality is much more than your body, but without your body and the physical experience of life you would not be the person you are. This is why we insisted on speaking only about personality as a physically embodied thing. Personality disembodied would not have life because the life of personality happens in a body not separate from one. We are speaking about real persons not fictional characters in stories. I’m alright with speaking about a Deity that might not exist but I refuse to entertain notions about one that could not exist. I’m a scientist. I theorize about the nature of the universe not characters in stories.”
Eleazar says, “Constant correspondence between the consonant features of body and personality is the life of man. Humans are coincident beings. Coincident is the time dimension in the dual aspect of being. Coincident being is an umbrella term for all of personality embodiment. For human beings, personality and bodily life begin, thrive and end together, that is part of what I mean by coincident. As human beings our personalities exist in our bodies for the life of our body. Limitless Personality is coincident also. Everything that happens in the universe is consonant with and corresponds with Limitless Personality. From eternity past into eternity future everything which happens in the material universe is coincident with the Limitless Personality of the Deity.”
“Ah, the Deity,” says Socrates, “so this Limitless Personality is the One True God, and you two are monotheists. Is that correct?”
“Yes, I believe in One True God,” says Eleazar, “but Anaxagoras must speak for himself.”
“I am a scientist,” says Anaxagoras, “I never could believe in the gods, even as a child, later on when it seemed the universe had a mind of its own I called that mind Nous. I did not call it God nor did I consider Nous to be a personality. I find Eleazar’s doctrine of Limitless Personality intriguing because of its grounding in physical reality and logical consistency. However, I retain a considerable degree of skepticism. As a scientist I study it only as an exercise in scientific inquiry that is worthy of my time. My skepticism and dislike for religion prejudice me against belief in super human beings but Eleazar’s theological cosmology seems to explain many things. Despite much initial doubt I cannot to my satisfaction falsify it with logic.”
“Without even giving up my skepticism and prejudice the perspective is useful. Unlike other descriptions of the gods Eleazar’s philosophical system has sensible application to understanding the realities of human life. The nature of a theoretically Limitless Personality provides accurate information that would not be available without the theory. It gives us a unique window into human behavior and sheds valuable light on the sources of much psychological malfunction. The definition of Limitless Personality is a true plumb line that gives us an unwavering perspective on human personality.”
Socrates says, “And that makes the logical understanding of Limitless Personality valuable whether or not it describes an actual being?”
“Yes, it does,” says Anaxagoras, “Without a plumb line to check each course masonry soon goes awry.”
Socrates looking at Eleazar says, “so only you are a true believer in this monotheistic Deity?”
Eleazar says, “the word monotheism is very troublesome to define. Would you care to tell us your definition of it so we may better understand what you mean when you say it?
The adopting the form of Socratic questioning Eleazar asks, “Socrates, what is monotheism?”