More on emergence and heuristics ...

Some more thoughtful thoughts on emergence:

Of course a general theory which drags in 'emergence' must be false, but we shouldn't leap to conclusions here.  The important question is why we need that particular general theory, what it does for us.  This can be a hard question to address, because addressing it requires us to decode some of our fundamental heuristics - many of which will have acquired an almost metaphysical status, so that relinquishing or revising them will have disturbing emotional consequences.

If we believe, for instance, that a rational science is only possible if the world can be reduced (at least in principle) to mechanism, then we will hang on to emergence to retain our rationality.  (The thought that this, itself, may be an irrational strategy, will be almost too terrifying to entertain.)

Also, spooky alternatives to emergence simply don't explain anything.  The ghost in the machine is just another place-holder for ignorance, or evidence of error - perhaps about the kind of machine, or about what can be done with mechanism, but error nonetheless.

The way forward is not via some more comforting metaphysics, however.  (All metaphysical accounts will also be place-holders, if something like what I'm saying turns out to be correct).

The way forward is to start with the irreducibles of account giving, which include the possibility of accounts and of the givers of accounts.