Wow, thanks to both of you for responding so thoroughly to my questions. I think I accept the discrepancy between Emergence and classical mathematics now. Although, I’m still skeptical about free will… I’ve been thinking about this talk given by Swarthmore Economist Mark Kumperberg arguing that people more readily accept ideas that are packages to agree with previously held beliefs. I think that I have encountered some of this behavior while discussing this week’s article with two friends (seniors in art history and archaeology). I tried to explain the theory of top down thinking to them using the cog machine idea. No dice. They remained skeptical, thinking that is was just a far out theory. So, I tried to think about confirmation bias and re-package this article in something more recognizable. The contemporary analogy I hit upon was the idea of a corporation. It is easier to apply in this abstract context because it’s a widely known, concrete system. My friends found it helpful for discussing emergence, so maybe others could too. And, since it is a naturally emerging social structure, it supports the theory of emergence being a cross disciplinary phenomena. A friend even pointed out that it is better representation of the process (as we understood it) than a machine because a corporation consists of several sentient beings instead of a machine’s metal gears. The idea is that a large corporation has several levels of organization. Looking at the mail room, one could not discern the activities of the CEO. However, their work is interconnected even if the CEO has more control over the mail clerk than vice versa. And, the corporation is constantly evolving into high levels of organization (globalization!). I’m sure that I’m not the first person to think of this, but I couldn’t quickly find another resource via google. Maybe someone else can help me out?