I agree with Laura’s assessment that there is this expectation that emergence will become the "penultimate field", when instead is should maybe be viewed as ´connecting/supplementing, rather than unifying’. It seems that historically there has always been this fixation on finding the key to explaining ‘it all’. The problem with thinking like this is that the solution comes before discovery. What if there is no unifying answer? I like the approach of putting a process in motion, watching to see what it does and maybe (or not) discovering that there are similarities between seemingly different entities. What may be useful is meaning behind those similarities. I don’t see emergence as an answer; it is just a way of looking at things. You don’t start out with a goal, you take the path and along the way you discover what is there.