[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

[Case]

dmb says:
Opposite sides of the same coin? This sort of logically fallacy probably has

a Latin name. I mean, if emergence says that the rules of chess can't "be 
predicted by or reduced to" the levels that enable them, then reduction is 
not the flip side of emergence. It simply defies the meaning of emergence. 
Reduction simply ignores the notion that these levels "play by their own 
rules". Reductionism would claim that playing chess could be explained in 
terms of physics or biology and so contradicts emergence. And this is a 
pretty neat little why of explaining why the MOQ is incompatible with 
reductionism. As you rightly point out, the levels are based on the notion 
that there are different sets of rules and that confusion results when we 
fail to take these differences into account. I am suggesting that 
reductionism is confused and fails for exactly that reason.

[Case]
I confess I am still thinking this one through so I appreciate your help.
While it is true that the rules of chess can not be deduced from the laws if
physics it is also true that without the laws of physics there would be not
chess. It is also true that a game of chess could be described strictly in
terms of physics. Still, such a description would not be very meaningful.
But it may be the rules of chess can be reduced to some other set of rules
more closely akin to it on the chain of emergence. For example, the role of
play in human development, the value of sublimating aggression and violence
in competitive activity, social patterns of leisure. 

Reductionism would hold that complex phenomena can be better understood by
breaking them down into constituent parts. But it does not mean that you
have to break them down past the point where it makes sense to do so. 
I really don't see how you can have complex activity resulting from simple
rules if you say the complex things can be broken down into simpler parts. 

Isn't this what Wilbur talks about with holons? That each holon is a unit
made of smaller units and composing a large unit. Doesn't each holon reduce
to its parts and emerge into a greater whole?