From “More Is Different” to Algorithmic Emergence: Regularity, Compression, and the Limits of Discovery

Scientific discovery seeks regularities that support explanation and prediction. Compression makes their reuse explicit: shared structure is described once, while parameters specify individual cases. A model can, therefore, pay for itself through repeated use even when its description is not minimal, provided it captures reusable structure in the data. Because regularities are often easier to identify in simpler systems, a reductionist approach is often employed: discover the laws of the parts and treat them as fundamental. Yet knowing those laws does not by itself provide useful coarse-grained models of the larger systems they compose. Here we formulate Anderson’s distinction between reduction and construction for finite algorithmic observers and prove three barriers to such construction. First, an observer’s coarse-grained record may retain so much information about initial or boundary conditions that no substantially shorter description exists, even when the underlying laws are simple and known. Second, when a shorter description does exist, open-ended search can eventually find one, but there is no computable bound on how long this may take, and no algorithm that always halts with a valid description can succeed in every case. Third, every such algorithm has blind spots at all sufficiently large lengths: records it leaves unshortened even though they admit descriptions of only logarithmic length. Yet observers do discover useful models. We call the event in which an observer acquires a representation relevant to its objective and a reusable model that reveals previously unavailable regularity algorithmic emergence. We give a sufficient certificate in explicit code lengths: the pair passes when, with its own description cost included, it compresses the retained data relative to an agreed baseline and yields further savings on later observations. Even for a stream that repeats one block, no computable procedure that always halts with valid codes can guarantee finding a passing pair with the observations available whenever one exists, nor remain within a fixed number of bits of the best qualifying complete code. Favorable structure, including symmetry and restricted model classes, can nevertheless make discovery feasible.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Entropy
Published
2026-10-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/e28101090
Primary Topic
Computability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

From “More Is Different” to Algorithmic Emergence: Regularity, Compression, and the Limits of Discovery

Giulio Ruffini, Francesca Castaldo
Entropy
Computability, Logic, AI Algorithms
article

From “More Is Different” to Algorithmic Emergence: Regularity, Compression, and the Limits of Discovery

Giulio Ruffini, Francesca Castaldo
article en

Abstract

Scientific discovery seeks regularities that support explanation and prediction. Compression makes their reuse explicit: shared structure is described once, while parameters specify individual cases. A model can, therefore, pay for itself through repeated use even when its description is not minimal, provided it captures reusable structure in the data. Because regularities are often easier to identify in simpler systems, a reductionist approach is often employed: discover the laws of the parts and treat them as fundamental. Yet knowing those laws does not by itself provide useful coarse-grained models of the larger systems they compose. Here we formulate Anderson’s distinction between reduction and construction for finite algorithmic observers and prove three barriers to such construction. First, an observer’s coarse-grained record may retain so much information about initial or boundary conditions that no substantially shorter description exists, even when the underlying laws are simple and known. Second, when a shorter description does exist, open-ended search can eventually find one, but there is no computable bound on how long this may take, and no algorithm that always halts with a valid description can succeed in every case. Third, every such algorithm has blind spots at all sufficiently large lengths: records it leaves unshortened even though they admit descriptions of only logarithmic length. Yet observers do discover useful models. We call the event in which an observer acquires a representation relevant to its objective and a reusable model that reveals previously unavailable regularity algorithmic emergence. We give a sufficient certificate in explicit code lengths: the pair passes when, with its own description cost included, it compresses the retained data relative to an agreed baseline and yields further savings on later observations. Even for a stream that repeats one block, no computable procedure that always halts with valid codes can guarantee finding a passing pair with the observations available whenever one exists, nor remain within a fixed number of bits of the best qualifying complete code. Favorable structure, including symmetry and restricted model classes, can nevertheless make discovery feasible.

EntropyVol. 28(10)
Starlab Barcelona SLU (Spain) (ES), Neuroelectrics Barcelona SLU (Spain) (ES)
Openalex Percentile: Top 50%
Computability, Logic, AI Algorithms
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.