[joelegner]

Let there be some ants. Let each individual ant act according to local rules.

None of the individual ant’s rules say “build an anthill,” yet after a few days there is an anthill.

I predict there are many anthills that have never been observed. So we have a fact of nature (anthill exists) that “emerges” from local interactions of ants — without an observer.

Where does the above go wrong in your view?

Edit: fixed grammar.

[reliablereason]

In this case you "observed" the anthill by writing about and describing it.

Things emerge in to something. In this case it emerged in to models of the world that exist in mine and your mind.

The pattern that was the anthill exists, but it has not emerged in to something before it has emerged in to a model of something.

So I guess it goes wrong cause we use different definitions for what it means for something to emerge.

On a side note. I am not quite sure what you mean with "a fact of nature", my best guess is something like: it is an axiom of truth that anthills exist. But that does not make sense to me. Maybe it is more like: we observe anthills so they must exist. Idk? Probably not relevant, seams more like you are refuting some postmodern idealistic idea which states that everything is mind, which I don’t subscribe to.