When high level behavior that can be described by simple equations emerges from low level laws, we call it physics. When it doesn't, we call it chemistry, biology, geology, etc. (EDIT: how could I forget econoimics :-))<p><i>There is only one thing which is more unreasonable than the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in physics, and this is the unreasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics in biology.</i><p>— Israel Gelfand
You can consider a "lack of an electron" as the same thing as an "Electron hole quasiparticle".<p>The problem is this only holds 100% true in the abstract thought and specific mathematical frameworks (and their formulas) you are working in.<p>While you can do the math, and get the right results, it does not <i>necessarily</i> make it real outside of the human brain.<p>The majority of quasiparticles are just another way of looking at things. Some are totally human creations, others are combined effects, and some emergent phenomena.
Emergent structures have the property of being possible to generalize about and simulate to some extent by simpler means than the modeling of their most fundamental components. When this is not the case, it means the large scale result of the fundamental components is chaotic.<p>But if such a chaos were to characterize any given scale of any universe, intelligent life at that scale would be impossible. When the author asks, "How can the same sorts of simple equations keep appearing at every scale of nature that we look for them?", my (perhaps simplistic) answer is that if chaos were to entirely characterize a given scale, that scale would be too remote from ours to be observable. Chaos would be the barrier to observation.<p>So, I would venture that emergence as we observe it in the universe is not that surprising or miraculous, but inevitable. Though I may be wrong and/or not the first to provide this "explanation".