Let's illustrate the distinction between properties and capacities with a simple example. A kitchen knife may be either sharp or not, sharpness being an actual property of the knife. We can identify this property with the shape of the cross section of the knife's blade: if this cross section has a triangular shape then the knife is sharp else it is blunt. This shape is emergent because the metallic atoms making up the knife must be arranged in a very particular way for it to be triangular. There is, on the other hand, the capacity of the knife to cut things. This is a very different thing because...
Note: actualizing a capacity is like collapsing a probability wave. It's not obsevation that matters, it is events.
what is needed is a way of specifying the structure of the space of possibilities that is defined by an entity's tendencies and capacities.
Note: a multiplicity
This implies that topological facts about possibility spaces can be discovered without reference to the nature of the degrees of freedom, only to their number, and without reference to the nature of the gradient (thermal, gravitational, mechanical, chemical) only to its existence." But the fact that the existence of a gradient, any gradient, is necessary confirms the immanent status of singularities.
Note: I think you only need to refer to the size of the gradient, not its existence. So the argument for immanence isn't quite compelling. Don't forget this guy is dogmatically anti-transcendental.
Conceivably we could replace human skills by an impersonal evolutionary process to discover and assemble the engineered patterns but that would still not justify the assertion that class IV rules by themselves imply the emergence of complex automata.
Note: I hope he's going to close this hole for the insertion of an argument for Intelligent Design.