I second that it would be good to perhaps add something by way of definition

e.g.

Emergence concerns new properties produced as the system grows, which is to say ones which are not shared with its components when considered in isolation or in prior simpler states. Also, it must be assumed that some of the system properties are supervenient   that is to say interlinked in  way that a change in one thing is required for there to be a change in the other rather than metaphysically primitive, that  is to say indivisible and totally independent entities or  concepts.

That should do it...  Pillow and a mug of cocoa anyone ?

I think in the world of  engineering we worry about things known and discussed in the specialist vernacular as surprises, or unforeseen occurrences.

The art of allowing for these is the art of management of risk.

A chap called Rumsfeld had something pithy to say about unknown unknowns as well

A rewrite in plainspeak would help,  also as it seems that true (strong) emergence is incompatible with the laws of physics, so I cannot support it  ;-)

Mike.

mapj1 said:

as surprises, or unforeseen occurrences.

I'm currently working on a Canadian project which uses the North American military term "mishaps". To our UK ears it sounds highly entertaining to refer to the potential event where e.g. two trains collide with multiple fatalities as a "mishap" - "oh dear, what a pity, that was a bit of a mishap wasn't it, tut tut"! But then plenty of things we say sound strange to Canadian ears...

mapj1 said:

as surprises, or unforeseen occurrences.

I'm currently working on a Canadian project which uses the North American military term "mishaps". To our UK ears it sounds highly entertaining to refer to the potential event where e.g. two trains collide with multiple fatalities as a "mishap" - "oh dear, what a pity, that was a bit of a mishap wasn't it, tut tut"! But then plenty of things we say sound strange to Canadian ears...

No worse than 'near miss' used locally to mean things that to the non-specialist sound like not even close to a "miss" at all..

To the man in the street a near miss is when a projectile ruffles your hair but does no injury, and is a serious  thing - as in a few inches removed from a fatality or life changing accident..

To some H and S types a near miss is an extension lead in the stock cupboard with an out-of date test label, or a cable that no one tripped over but perhaps they might have if anyone had walked there.

The problem is that 'erring on the safe side' can over-state very minor risks and  cheapens the language of the more serious things we should be looking at. 

This is in much the same way as the proliferation of warnings. "do not touch the blade" is a very sensible warning on a chainsaw, but to put an identical standard warning on a penknife immediately lowers the perceived risk of the chainsaw to the same level as the knife, which it really isn't.

Language matters, and must match the intended audience - and if, as the modern trend,  you have managers of the type who have an MBA but precious little knowledge of the nuts and volts of what they are managing, then it becomes really very important indeed .

Actually we have a great many special terms we use to describe when things go wrong with a great finesse of resolution of the severity of the problem, but these are not in the official lexicon. Sadly I think most of them would not survive the auto-censor, though I suspect many practical places of work are the same.

Mike

Mike, the Complex Systems working group is holding its next virtual meeting for an hour on Mon 14 Feb am, where we'll be discussing the comments and the work towards a more comprehensive document.  If you're interested in taking part, please get in touch at arylah@theiet.org.