Friam

PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

Classic

List

Threaded

35 messages Options

thompnickson2

PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

Hi, All,

If any of you had any spare brain time, I am interested in the attached VERY SHORT article:

I am struggling here with the idea of "screening off". Does it mean more or less than the following: Granted that, If I had ham, and I had eggs, I would have ham and eggs, having eggs screens off having ham from having ham and eggs? Screening off seems a very odd metaphor. Is it a term of art in logic?

Also, a general problem I have with causality: My understanding of causality is that event A can cause event B if and only if A is independently known from B (an event cannot cause itself) AND occurs prior to B Now imagine two perfectly meshed gears, such that motion in one is instantly conveyed to the other. I turn gear A and gear B turns. Has the motion in A caused the turning of B or has my turning of A caused the motion of B? With the gears, this may just seem like a fussy “in the limit” sort of question, but there seem to be other phenomena where it’s worth asking. Does the discharge of potential along the ionized (?) path CAUSE the lightning?

I realize that the rest of you have spouses, dogs, cats, hobbies, and day jobs, but any off hand thoughts you have on these matters would be greatly appreciated.

Nick

You can view "PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf" at:

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:a6e9c10b-06dc-4ea1-8ffa-d450df62489a

________________

Sent with Adobe Document Cloud. Click on the link above to access the file online. No sign up or installation of Acrobat is required to access.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

"Screening off" is an informal term of art in causal reasoning. If A,B, and C are random variables, the Causal Markov Condition asserts that if A causes B and B causes C then knowing the value of A provides no information about the probability density of C over knowing the value of B.

It is also said that B screens off the causal effect of A on C.

I hope that helps,

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 10:07 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, All,

If any of you had any spare brain time, I am interested in the attached VERY SHORT article:

I am struggling here with the idea of "screening off". Does it mean more or less than the following: Granted that, If I had ham, and I had eggs, I would have ham and eggs, having eggs screens off having ham from having ham and eggs? Screening off seems a very odd metaphor. Is it a term of art in logic?

Also, a general problem I have with causality: My understanding of causality is that event A can cause event B if and only if A is independently known from B (an event cannot cause itself) AND occurs prior to B Now imagine two perfectly meshed gears, such that motion in one is instantly conveyed to the other. I turn gear A and gear B turns. Has the motion in A caused the turning of B or has my turning of A caused the motion of B? With the gears, this may just seem like a fussy “in the limit” sort of question, but there seem to be other phenomena where it’s worth asking. Does the discharge of potential along the ionized (?) path CAUSE the lightning?

I realize that the rest of you have spouses, dogs, cats, hobbies, and day jobs, but any off hand thoughts you have on these matters would be greatly appreciated.

Nick

You can view "PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf" at:
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:a6e9c10b-06dc-4ea1-8ffa-d450df62489a

________________
Sent with Adobe Document Cloud. Click on the link above to access the file online. No sign up or installation of Acrobat is required to access.
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

I think I have useful things to say about it. But who knows for sure?

I regard this sort of screen as if *from* the present looking into the past. From the perspective of the 3rd node, can you *see* the 1st node? Or can you only see the 2nd node? (I think I alluded to this in my post about Barbour's "Janus Point".)

As to the meshed gears, as usual, it's useful to crack cause into multiple meanings like agency vs material, formal, and final. But you can also adopt a perspective. From the 2nd gear's perspective, the 1st gear is causing it to move. From the 1st gear's perspective, you are causing it to move. And from a multi-gear perspective, either you *or* the designer is causing the 2nd gear to move. Scoping, scoping, scoping, scoping.

On 2/10/21 9:06 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Hi, All,
>
>
>
> If any of you had any spare brain time, I am interested in the attached VERY SHORT <https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:a6e9c10b-06dc-4ea1-8ffa-d450df62489a> article:
>
>
>
> I am struggling here with the idea of "screening off". Does it mean more or less than the following: Granted that, If I had ham, and I had eggs, I would have ham and eggs, having eggs screens off having ham from having ham and eggs? Screening off seems a very odd metaphor. Is it a term of art in logic?
>
>
>
> Also, a general problem I have with causality: My understanding of causality is that event A can cause event B if and only if A is independently known from B (an event cannot cause itself) AND occurs prior to B Now imagine two perfectly meshed gears, such that motion in one is instantly conveyed to the other. I turn gear A and gear B turns. Has the motion in A /caused/ the turning of B or has my turning of A caused the motion of B? With the gears, this may just seem like a fussy “in the limit” sort of question, but there seem to be other phenomena where it’s worth asking. Does the discharge of potential along the ionized (?) path CAUSE the lightning?
>
>
>
> I realize that the rest of you have spouses, dogs, cats, hobbies, and day jobs, but any off hand thoughts you have on these matters would be greatly appreciated.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

thompnickson2

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

Frank,

Is my ham sandwich example apt, or not?

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:38 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

It is also said that B screens off the causal effect of A on C.

I hope that helps,

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 10:07 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, All,

If any of you had any spare brain time, I am interested in the attached VERY SHORT article:

I am struggling here with the idea of "screening off". Does it mean more or less than the following: Granted that, If I had ham, and I had eggs, I would have ham and eggs, having eggs screens off having ham from having ham and eggs? Screening off seems a very odd metaphor. Is it a term of art in logic?

Also, a general problem I have with causality: My understanding of causality is that event A can cause event B if and only if A is independently known from B (an event cannot cause itself) AND occurs prior to B Now imagine two perfectly meshed gears, such that motion in one is instantly conveyed to the other. I turn gear A and gear B turns. Has the motion in A caused the turning of B or has my turning of A caused the motion of B? With the gears, this may just seem like a fussy “in the limit” sort of question, but there seem to be other phenomena where it’s worth asking. Does the discharge of potential along the ionized (?) path CAUSE the lightning?

I realize that the rest of you have spouses, dogs, cats, hobbies, and day jobs, but any off hand thoughts you have on these matters would be greatly appreciated.

Nick

You can view "PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf" at:
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:a6e9c10b-06dc-4ea1-8ffa-d450df62489a

________________
Sent with Adobe Document Cloud. Click on the link above to access the file online. No sign up or installation of Acrobat is required to access.
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

In reply to this post by gepr

Thanks, Glen,

You consistently give me thoughts to chew on. Your introduction of "point of view' into the conversation is a "New Thought" for me, and I am grateful for it. In particular, it makes apt the metaphor of screening off. So, let it be the case that a third variable, C, also affects B. In that case, one could not make predictions about B to A without knowing about C. Thus, C screens off A from B. I think I get it.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 12:00 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

I think I have useful things to say about it. But who knows for sure?

I regard this sort of screen as if *from* the present looking into the past. From the perspective of the 3rd node, can you *see* the 1st node? Or can you only see the 2nd node? (I think I alluded to this in my post about Barbour's "Janus Point".)

As to the meshed gears, as usual, it's useful to crack cause into multiple meanings like agency vs material, formal, and final. But you can also adopt a perspective. From the 2nd gear's perspective, the 1st gear is causing it to move. From the 1st gear's perspective, you are causing it to move. And from a multi-gear perspective, either you *or* the designer is causing the 2nd gear to move. Scoping, scoping, scoping, scoping.

On 2/10/21 9:06 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

David Eric Smith

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Aha, Nick! You have Curried the function!

Having Ham and Eggs is a function.

Having Ham and Eggs given Having Eggs is a Curried function, which now turns on whether you have ham or not as its one argument.

Just to cause trouble,

Eric

On Feb 10, 2021, at 1:41 PM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

Frank,

Is my ham sandwich example apt, or not?

N

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:38 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

"Screening off" is an informal term of art in causal reasoning. If A,B, and C are random variables, the Causal Markov Condition asserts that if A causes B and B causes C then knowing the value of A provides no information about the probability density of C over knowing the value of B.

It is also said that B screens off the causal effect of A on C.

I hope that helps,

Frank
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 10:07 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi, All,

If any of you had any spare brain time, I am interested in the attached VERY SHORT article:

I am struggling here with the idea of "screening off". Does it mean more or less than the following: Granted that, If I had ham, and I had eggs, I would have ham and eggs, having eggs screens off having ham from having ham and eggs? Screening off seems a very odd metaphor. Is it a term of art in logic?

Also, a general problem I have with causality: My understanding of causality is that event A can cause event B if and only if A is independently known from B (an event cannot cause itself) AND occurs prior to B Now imagine two perfectly meshed gears, such that motion in one is instantly conveyed to the other. I turn gear A and gear B turns. Has the motion in A caused the turning of B or has my turning of A caused the motion of B? With the gears, this may just seem like a fussy “in the limit” sort of question, but there seem to be other phenomena where it’s worth asking. Does the discharge of potential along the ionized (?) path CAUSE the lightning?

I realize that the rest of you have spouses, dogs, cats, hobbies, and day jobs, but any off hand thoughts you have on these matters would be greatly appreciated.

Nick

You can view "PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf" at:
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:a6e9c10b-06dc-4ea1-8ffa-d450df62489a

________________
Sent with Adobe Document Cloud. Click on the link above to access the file online. No sign up or installation of Acrobat is required to access.
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,LsvQ-Konio5gyUZGW7axH3IzObDNlz1zu6ct9uQ1pAy6PPi4RhSRR2ug1sROydjfAAfPeLhP62ZNZ5KlqNiH8BoLIsZAXfRxnJjN1hHLvP5SCA,,&typo=1
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,HTDcS9hxie_HmLuF3VxbAWJVH5K0yQE4UlKP9wE2wz41_3dWcH16ZHkWy0RXo3bybRGpBeaofyh7x2-cKqXKktdjPW3YoL-IQjW0bubaXa0Dk0S2Jf2TGQXspsg,&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Nick,

Somehow I don't relate to the sandwich case. Is having ham and having eggs different from having ham and eggs.

Your second question may be related to the following: if A and B are both causes of C then A and B are not independent given C. Let C be "car starts", A be "gas in tank" and B be "battery charged". If you know there's gas in the tank and you observe that the car starts then you infer whether the battery is charged. There are numerous ways to object to this which are irrelevant. "What if the spark plugs are missing?" Etc.

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 11:50 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks, Glen,

You consistently give me thoughts to chew on. Your introduction of "point of view' into the conversation is a "New Thought" for me, and I am grateful for it. In particular, it makes apt the metaphor of screening off. So, let it be the case that a third variable, C, also affects B. In that case, one could not make predictions about B to A without knowing about C. Thus, C screens off A from B. I think I get it.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 12:00 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

I think I have useful things to say about it. But who knows for sure?

I regard this sort of screen as if *from* the present looking into the past. From the perspective of the 3rd node, can you *see* the 1st node? Or can you only see the 2nd node? (I think I alluded to this in my post about Barbour's "Janus Point".)

As to the meshed gears, as usual, it's useful to crack cause into multiple meanings like agency vs material, formal, and final. But you can also adopt a perspective. From the 2nd gear's perspective, the 1st gear is causing it to move. From the 1st gear's perspective, you are causing it to move. And from a multi-gear perspective, either you *or* the designer is causing the 2nd gear to move. Scoping, scoping, scoping, scoping.

On 2/10/21 9:06 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Hi, All,
>
>
>
> If any of you had any spare brain time, I am interested in the attached VERY SHORT <https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:a6e9c10b-06dc-4ea1-8ffa-d450df62489a> article:
>
>
>
> I am struggling here with the idea of "screening off". Does it mean more or less than the following: Granted that, If I had ham, and I had eggs, I would have ham and eggs, having eggs screens off having ham from having ham and eggs? Screening off seems a very odd metaphor. Is it a term of art in logic?
>
>
>
> Also, a general problem I have with causality: My understanding of causality is that event A can cause event B if and only if A is independently known from B (an event cannot cause itself) AND occurs prior to B Now imagine two perfectly meshed gears, such that motion in one is instantly conveyed to the other. I turn gear A and gear B turns. Has the motion in A /caused/ the turning of B or has my turning of A caused the motion of B? With the gears, this may just seem like a fussy “in the limit” sort of question, but there seem to be other phenomena where it’s worth asking. Does the discharge of potential along the ionized (?) path CAUSE the lightning?
>
>
>
> I realize that the rest of you have spouses, dogs, cats, hobbies, and day jobs, but any off hand thoughts you have on these matters would be greatly appreciated.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

In reply to this post by David Eric Smith

AT first I thought you were teasing me, and I wrote:

Even if I haven’t put curry on the ham and eggs?

But then, I thought I had better check, so feeling foolish, I asked Google, “what is a curried function?”

Ohmigosh.

So let’s say we have three input variables, I, J, and K and out output variable, O. What is the joint effect of I, J, and K upon O? Well, if we assume additivity it’s simply the sum of the three effects, right. And in that case we could simply calculate the three effects and add them up, right? If there is no additivity, we have emergence, and O is screened off from I, by J and K, etc. Now Sober seems to think that non-additivity is clarified by introducing yet another variable, a hypothetical mediating variable, M, “between”) the input variables and the output variable. It wont be any surprise to the rest of you that I think that move is stupid. Since M is constituted of the relations amongst the input and the output variables it cannot in any sense be a cause in the system, no matter how complex those relations might be. At best, it’s a convenience in calculation.

But I still don’t have a firm grip on “currying”. I am beginning to think of it as analogous to partitioning variance in a complex ANOVA such that one achieves additivity in the end. I did learn that the Curry in question is a person not a condiment

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 12:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

Aha, Nick! You have Curried the function!

Having Ham and Eggs is a function.

Having Ham and Eggs given Having Eggs is a Curried function, which now turns on whether you have ham or not as its one argument.

Just to cause trouble,

Eric

On Feb 10, 2021, at 1:41 PM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

Frank,

Is my ham sandwich example apt, or not?

N

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:38 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

"Screening off" is an informal term of art in causal reasoning. If A,B, and C are random variables, the Causal Markov Condition asserts that if A causes B and B causes C then knowing the value of A provides no information about the probability density of C over knowing the value of B.

It is also said that B screens off the causal effect of A on C.

I hope that helps,

Frank
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 10:07 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi, All,

If any of you had any spare brain time, I am interested in the attached VERY SHORT article:

I am struggling here with the idea of "screening off". Does it mean more or less than the following: Granted that, If I had ham, and I had eggs, I would have ham and eggs, having eggs screens off having ham from having ham and eggs? Screening off seems a very odd metaphor. Is it a term of art in logic?

Also, a general problem I have with causality: My understanding of causality is that event A can cause event B if and only if A is independently known from B (an event cannot cause itself) AND occurs prior to B Now imagine two perfectly meshed gears, such that motion in one is instantly conveyed to the other. I turn gear A and gear B turns. Has the motion in A caused the turning of B or has my turning of A caused the motion of B? With the gears, this may just seem like a fussy “in the limit” sort of question, but there seem to be other phenomena where it’s worth asking. Does the discharge of potential along the ionized (?) path CAUSE the lightning?

I realize that the rest of you have spouses, dogs, cats, hobbies, and day jobs, but any off hand thoughts you have on these matters would be greatly appreciated.

Nick

You can view "PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf" at:
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:a6e9c10b-06dc-4ea1-8ffa-d450df62489a

________________
Sent with Adobe Document Cloud. Click on the link above to access the file online. No sign up or installation of Acrobat is required to access.
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,LsvQ-Konio5gyUZGW7axH3IzObDNlz1zu6ct9uQ1pAy6PPi4RhSRR2ug1sROydjfAAfPeLhP62ZNZ5KlqNiH8BoLIsZAXfRxnJjN1hHLvP5SCA,,&typo=1
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,HTDcS9hxie_HmLuF3VxbAWJVH5K0yQE4UlKP9wE2wz41_3dWcH16ZHkWy0RXo3bybRGpBeaofyh7x2-cKqXKktdjPW3YoL-IQjW0bubaXa0Dk0S2Jf2TGQXspsg,&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

So the presence and absence of spark Plugs screens off cart Starting from the Gas tank and the Battery charge. To put in terms of ANOVA, there is no additivity of variance in the effects of G, B, and P upon S. One could, of course, achieve additivity by partitioning the variance into the various interactions in G, B, and P’s effects upon (Pr S). Or is the analogy between ANOVA and Currying completely without merit.

This only demonstrates further that FRIWWMFTT.

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

Nick,

Somehow I don't relate to the sandwich case. Is having ham and having eggs different from having ham and eggs.

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 11:50 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks, Glen,

You consistently give me thoughts to chew on. Your introduction of "point of view' into the conversation is a "New Thought" for me, and I am grateful for it. In particular, it makes apt the metaphor of screening off. So, let it be the case that a third variable, C, also affects B. In that case, one could not make predictions about B to A without knowing about C. Thus, C screens off A from B. I think I get it.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 12:00 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

I think I have useful things to say about it. But who knows for sure?

I regard this sort of screen as if *from* the present looking into the past. From the perspective of the 3rd node, can you *see* the 1st node? Or can you only see the 2nd node? (I think I alluded to this in my post about Barbour's "Janus Point".)

As to the meshed gears, as usual, it's useful to crack cause into multiple meanings like agency vs material, formal, and final. But you can also adopt a perspective. From the 2nd gear's perspective, the 1st gear is causing it to move. From the 1st gear's perspective, you are causing it to move. And from a multi-gear perspective, either you *or* the designer is causing the 2nd gear to move. Scoping, scoping, scoping, scoping.

On 2/10/21 9:06 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Hi, All,
>
>
>
> If any of you had any spare brain time, I am interested in the attached VERY SHORT <https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:a6e9c10b-06dc-4ea1-8ffa-d450df62489a> article:
>
>
>
> I am struggling here with the idea of "screening off". Does it mean more or less than the following: Granted that, If I had ham, and I had eggs, I would have ham and eggs, having eggs screens off having ham from having ham and eggs? Screening off seems a very odd metaphor. Is it a term of art in logic?
>
>
>
> Also, a general problem I have with causality: My understanding of causality is that event A can cause event B if and only if A is independently known from B (an event cannot cause itself) AND occurs prior to B Now imagine two perfectly meshed gears, such that motion in one is instantly conveyed to the other. I turn gear A and gear B turns. Has the motion in A /caused/ the turning of B or has my turning of A caused the motion of B? With the gears, this may just seem like a fussy “in the limit” sort of question, but there seem to be other phenomena where it’s worth asking. Does the discharge of potential along the ionized (?) path CAUSE the lightning?
>
>
>
> I realize that the rest of you have spouses, dogs, cats, hobbies, and day jobs, but any off hand thoughts you have on these matters would be greatly appreciated.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

I was warning you not to bring up spark plugs and other BS that made the example lack causal sufficiency thereby muddying the water unhelpfully. I guess the warning was too vague.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 12:34 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

So the presence and absence of spark Plugs screens off cart Starting from the Gas tank and the Battery charge. To put in terms of ANOVA, there is no additivity of variance in the effects of G, B, and P upon S. One could, of course, achieve additivity by partitioning the variance into the various interactions in G, B, and P’s effects upon (Pr S). Or is the analogy between ANOVA and Currying completely without merit.

This only demonstrates further that FRIWWMFTT.

N

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

Nick,

Somehow I don't relate to the sandwich case. Is having ham and having eggs different from having ham and eggs.

Your second question may be related to the following: if A and B are both causes of C then A and B are not independent given C. Let C be "car starts", A be "gas in tank" and B be "battery charged". If you know there's gas in the tank and you observe that the car starts then you infer whether the battery is charged. There are numerous ways to object to this which are irrelevant. "What if the spark plugs are missing?" Etc.

Frank
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 11:50 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks, Glen,

You consistently give me thoughts to chew on. Your introduction of "point of view' into the conversation is a "New Thought" for me, and I am grateful for it. In particular, it makes apt the metaphor of screening off. So, let it be the case that a third variable, C, also affects B. In that case, one could not make predictions about B to A without knowing about C. Thus, C screens off A from B. I think I get it.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 12:00 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

I think I have useful things to say about it. But who knows for sure?

I regard this sort of screen as if *from* the present looking into the past. From the perspective of the 3rd node, can you *see* the 1st node? Or can you only see the 2nd node? (I think I alluded to this in my post about Barbour's "Janus Point".)

As to the meshed gears, as usual, it's useful to crack cause into multiple meanings like agency vs material, formal, and final. But you can also adopt a perspective. From the 2nd gear's perspective, the 1st gear is causing it to move. From the 1st gear's perspective, you are causing it to move. And from a multi-gear perspective, either you *or* the designer is causing the 2nd gear to move. Scoping, scoping, scoping, scoping.

On 2/10/21 9:06 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Hi, All,
>
>
>
> If any of you had any spare brain time, I am interested in the attached VERY SHORT <https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:a6e9c10b-06dc-4ea1-8ffa-d450df62489a> article:
>
>
>
> I am struggling here with the idea of "screening off". Does it mean more or less than the following: Granted that, If I had ham, and I had eggs, I would have ham and eggs, having eggs screens off having ham from having ham and eggs? Screening off seems a very odd metaphor. Is it a term of art in logic?
>
>
>
> Also, a general problem I have with causality: My understanding of causality is that event A can cause event B if and only if A is independently known from B (an event cannot cause itself) AND occurs prior to B Now imagine two perfectly meshed gears, such that motion in one is instantly conveyed to the other. I turn gear A and gear B turns. Has the motion in A /caused/ the turning of B or has my turning of A caused the motion of B? With the gears, this may just seem like a fussy “in the limit” sort of question, but there seem to be other phenomena where it’s worth asking. Does the discharge of potential along the ionized (?) path CAUSE the lightning?
>
>
>
> I realize that the rest of you have spouses, dogs, cats, hobbies, and day jobs, but any off hand thoughts you have on these matters would be greatly appreciated.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

Ok. I clearly am very confused. Perhaps we should take this off line. Thanks frank.

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:38 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

I was warning you not to bring up spark plugs and other BS that made the example lack causal sufficiency thereby muddying the water unhelpfully. I guess the warning was too vague.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 12:34 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

So the presence and absence of spark Plugs screens off cart Starting from the Gas tank and the Battery charge. To put in terms of ANOVA, there is no additivity of variance in the effects of G, B, and P upon S. One could, of course, achieve additivity by partitioning the variance into the various interactions in G, B, and P’s effects upon (Pr S). Or is the analogy between ANOVA and Currying completely without merit.

This only demonstrates further that FRIWWMFTT.

N

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

Nick,

Somehow I don't relate to the sandwich case. Is having ham and having eggs different from having ham and eggs.

Your second question may be related to the following: if A and B are both causes of C then A and B are not independent given C. Let C be "car starts", A be "gas in tank" and B be "battery charged". If you know there's gas in the tank and you observe that the car starts then you infer whether the battery is charged. There are numerous ways to object to this which are irrelevant. "What if the spark plugs are missing?" Etc.

Frank
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 11:50 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks, Glen,

You consistently give me thoughts to chew on. Your introduction of "point of view' into the conversation is a "New Thought" for me, and I am grateful for it. In particular, it makes apt the metaphor of screening off. So, let it be the case that a third variable, C, also affects B. In that case, one could not make predictions about B to A without knowing about C. Thus, C screens off A from B. I think I get it.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 12:00 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

I think I have useful things to say about it. But who knows for sure?

I regard this sort of screen as if *from* the present looking into the past. From the perspective of the 3rd node, can you *see* the 1st node? Or can you only see the 2nd node? (I think I alluded to this in my post about Barbour's "Janus Point".)

As to the meshed gears, as usual, it's useful to crack cause into multiple meanings like agency vs material, formal, and final. But you can also adopt a perspective. From the 2nd gear's perspective, the 1st gear is causing it to move. From the 1st gear's perspective, you are causing it to move. And from a multi-gear perspective, either you *or* the designer is causing the 2nd gear to move. Scoping, scoping, scoping, scoping.

On 2/10/21 9:06 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Hi, All,
>
>
>
> If any of you had any spare brain time, I am interested in the attached VERY SHORT <https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:a6e9c10b-06dc-4ea1-8ffa-d450df62489a> article:
>
>
>
> I am struggling here with the idea of "screening off". Does it mean more or less than the following: Granted that, If I had ham, and I had eggs, I would have ham and eggs, having eggs screens off having ham from having ham and eggs? Screening off seems a very odd metaphor. Is it a term of art in logic?
>
>
>
> Also, a general problem I have with causality: My understanding of causality is that event A can cause event B if and only if A is independently known from B (an event cannot cause itself) AND occurs prior to B Now imagine two perfectly meshed gears, such that motion in one is instantly conveyed to the other. I turn gear A and gear B turns. Has the motion in A /caused/ the turning of B or has my turning of A caused the motion of B? With the gears, this may just seem like a fussy “in the limit” sort of question, but there seem to be other phenomena where it’s worth asking. Does the discharge of potential along the ionized (?) path CAUSE the lightning?
>
>
>
> I realize that the rest of you have spouses, dogs, cats, hobbies, and day jobs, but any off hand thoughts you have on these matters would be greatly appreciated.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

jon zingale

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

In reply to this post by David Eric Smith

Nick,

I would say, yes. Frank's point is that if I have a causal chain of the form
A -> B -> C, where the arrow is strict causation, then B screens (or
filters, or blocks) knowledge about A at C. EricS' point is that (given
cartesian closedness[Ӕ]), there is a relationship that allows one to
transform between implication statements and conjunction statements.

We are likely ok with statements with forms:
a, a => b ⊢ b
a, a => b ⊢ a ^ b

The screening-off case appears to me to be that we cannot distinguish
extensionally (in cases of probability 1 causality) a path like:

a, a => b, b => c ⊢ a, a => c ⊢ c

from

a, a => b, b => c ⊢ b, b => c ⊢ c

what effectively amounts to transitivity. I don't really know about the term
screening-off, but I gather it has to do with this inability to distinguish.
Of course, I could be way off.

[Ӕ] The cartesian closed condition (CCC) is always available for debate, and
could easily be a point of contention (or block to understanding). A
wonderful example of how broken the CCC can be is explicated in the text
"Applied Category Theory" by Spivak (no not that Spivak) and Fong. To
summarize the point made there:

A material category includes objects like H20, 2Na, 2NaOH+H2, etc... This
collection yields a symmetric monoidal category that is not closed because
of an interesting technicality that arises often in functional programming
paradigms, something called currying:

A x B -> C ~ A -> (B -> C)

or as it appears in formal logic:

a ^ b => c ⊢ a => (b => c)

In words, a function that takes *a pair of things to a thing* corresponds to
a function that takes *a thing and returns a function that takes a thing and
returns a thing*. An example would be that I can write a function (+) which
takes a pair of numbers and returns a number: (+) 2 5 = 7 and this will
correspond to a function: (+ 2) 5 = 7 Which takes a 5 and returns a 7. The
(+ 2) isn't a number in its own right, but something that waits for a number
to do a thing. The authors go on to talk about this correspondence wrt a
material category.

We can have: 2H20 + 2Na -> 2sNaOH + H2 (Sorry for the lack of subscripts),
and this expression would correspond to:

2H20 -> (2Na -> (2sNaOH + H2)), while (2Na -> (2sNaOH + H2)) doesn't
correspond to any material, it does correspond to a potential reaction, with
two water molecules unlocking that potential. What is novel here, to me, is
the doubling of the word *potential*, that of something near to happening
with concepts like electrical potential (functional) giving rise to
lightning.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Steve Smith

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

In reply to this post by David Eric Smith

Aha, Nick! You have Curried the function!

Having Ham and Eggs is a function.

Having Ham and Eggs given Having Eggs is a Curried function, which now turns on whether you have ham or not as its one argument.

Just to cause trouble,

I do love my green curried eggs and spam!

and even more how Russel Munroe can play such things back on themselves recursively:

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2210:_College_Athletes

gepr

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

In reply to this post by jon zingale

This is exactly my problem with understanding tonk as both a bi-adjoint functor and NOT causing problems in logics that disallow transitivity. The only way I can feel around the problem is to allow multiple types of consequence. But it, and this discussion, pick at a fundamental problem I have with the way everyone discusses function composition. It seem to rely fundamentally on sequentiality. Everywhere we assume things like commutativity and transitivity, it seems to sequentialize it. But this flies smack in the face of how I experience reality, as pervasively parallel. The tricks we use to handle parallelism in computation feel like cheap magic tricks, stilted, inelegant, ham-handed abominations.

Or maybe I'm simply insane. This is probably a stupid post and I should delete it. Pfft. I'm going to lunch.

On 2/10/21 12:12 PM, jon zingale wrote:

> The screening-off case appears to me to be that we cannot distinguish
> extensionally (in cases of probability 1 causality) a path like:
>
> a, a => b, b => c ⊢ a, a => c ⊢ c
>
> from
>
> a, a => b, b => c ⊢ b, b => c ⊢ c
>
> what effectively amounts to transitivity. I don't really know about the term
> screening-off, but I gather it has to do with this inability to distinguish.
> Of course, I could be way off.
>
> [Ӕ] The cartesian closed condition (CCC) is always available for debate, and
> could easily be a point of contention (or block to understanding). A
> wonderful example of how broken the CCC can be is explicated in the text
> "Applied Category Theory" by Spivak (no not that Spivak) and Fong. To
> summarize the point made there:
>
> A material category includes objects like H20, 2Na, 2NaOH+H2, etc... This
> collection yields a symmetric monoidal category that is not closed because
> of an interesting technicality that arises often in functional programming
> paradigms, something called currying:
>
> A x B -> C ~ A -> (B -> C)
>
> or as it appears in formal logic:
>
> a ^ b => c ⊢ a => (b => c)
>
> In words, a function that takes *a pair of things to a thing* corresponds to
> a function that takes *a thing and returns a function that takes a thing and
> returns a thing*. An example would be that I can write a function (+) which
> takes a pair of numbers and returns a number: (+) 2 5 = 7 and this will
> correspond to a function: (+ 2) 5 = 7 Which takes a 5 and returns a 7. The
> (+ 2) isn't a number in its own right, but something that waits for a number
> to do a thing. The authors go on to talk about this correspondence wrt a
> material category.
>
> We can have: 2H20 + 2Na -> 2sNaOH + H2 (Sorry for the lack of subscripts),
> and this expression would correspond to:
>
> 2H20 -> (2Na -> (2sNaOH + H2)), while (2Na -> (2sNaOH + H2)) doesn't
> correspond to any material, it does correspond to a potential reaction, with
> two water molecules unlocking that potential. What is novel here, to me, is
> the doubling of the word *potential*, that of something near to happening
> with concepts like electrical potential (functional) giving rise to
> lightning.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

jon zingale

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

Ha! I should probably go to lunch too. What is funny is that I would almost
argue the opposite. The commutativity and transitivity almost seem to evoke
parallelism to me. While on a short walk, I started to wonder whether or not
(given a chain A->B->C), we could equally say that A screens B at C
(relative to the literature)?

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

In reply to this post by gepr

For chemical reactions, linear logic seems more realistic.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 12:27 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

This is exactly my problem with understanding tonk as both a bi-adjoint functor and NOT causing problems in logics that disallow transitivity. The only way I can feel around the problem is to allow multiple types of consequence. But it, and this discussion, pick at a fundamental problem I have with the way everyone discusses function composition. It seem to rely fundamentally on sequentiality. Everywhere we assume things like commutativity and transitivity, it seems to sequentialize it. But this flies smack in the face of how I experience reality, as pervasively parallel. The tricks we use to handle parallelism in computation feel like cheap magic tricks, stilted, inelegant, ham-handed abominations.

Or maybe I'm simply insane. This is probably a stupid post and I should delete it. Pfft. I'm going to lunch.

On 2/10/21 12:12 PM, jon zingale wrote:

> The screening-off case appears to me to be that we cannot distinguish
> extensionally (in cases of probability 1 causality) a path like:
>
> a, a => b, b => c ⊢ a, a => c ⊢ c
>
> from
>
> a, a => b, b => c ⊢ b, b => c ⊢ c
>
> what effectively amounts to transitivity. I don't really know about
> the term screening-off, but I gather it has to do with this inability to distinguish.
> Of course, I could be way off.
>
> [Ӕ] The cartesian closed condition (CCC) is always available for
> debate, and could easily be a point of contention (or block to
> understanding). A wonderful example of how broken the CCC can be is
> explicated in the text "Applied Category Theory" by Spivak (no not
> that Spivak) and Fong. To summarize the point made there:
>
> A material category includes objects like H20, 2Na, 2NaOH+H2, etc...
> This collection yields a symmetric monoidal category that is not
> closed because of an interesting technicality that arises often in
> functional programming paradigms, something called currying:
>
> A x B -> C ~ A -> (B -> C)
>
> or as it appears in formal logic:
>
> a ^ b => c ⊢ a => (b => c)
>
> In words, a function that takes *a pair of things to a thing*
> corresponds to a function that takes *a thing and returns a function
> that takes a thing and returns a thing*. An example would be that I
> can write a function (+) which takes a pair of numbers and returns a
> number: (+) 2 5 = 7 and this will correspond to a function: (+ 2) 5 =
> 7 Which takes a 5 and returns a 7. The (+ 2) isn't a number in its own
> right, but something that waits for a number to do a thing. The
> authors go on to talk about this correspondence wrt a material category.
>
> We can have: 2H20 + 2Na -> 2sNaOH + H2 (Sorry for the lack of
> subscripts), and this expression would correspond to:
>
> 2H20 -> (2Na -> (2sNaOH + H2)), while (2Na -> (2sNaOH + H2)) doesn't
> correspond to any material, it does correspond to a potential
> reaction, with two water molecules unlocking that potential. What is
> novel here, to me, is the doubling of the word *potential*, that of
> something near to happening with concepts like electrical potential
> (functional) giving rise to lightning.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

jon zingale

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

In reply to this post by jon zingale

I guess, thinking a little bit more about it, if we consider the case to be
non-cartesian closed but rather symmetric monoidal (as in the material
category outlined in the post above), then we are granted a linear logic
interpretation (bounded resources, etc...).

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

jon zingale

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Ha! just posted on that point!

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

All,

I guess, since nobody has responded to it, my attempt to analogize currying
to partitioning of variance in an ANOVA is NOT apt. Definitely a case of
FRIWWMFTT.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 2:54 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM]
PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

Ha! just posted on that point!

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

jon zingale

Re: PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

Nick,

I likely do not understand. Though my original post did begin with:

"Nick, I would say, yes."

Can you say more about the relationship that you wish to discuss?

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/