Posted by
glen e. p. ropella-2 on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-comm-was-Re-FW-Re-Emergence-Seminar-BritishEmergence-tp3654051p3695773.html
Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 09-09-22 01:52 PM:
> OK. I don't understand what you mean by either *circular causality* or *lexical
> mismatch*.
Whew! OK. By "circular causality", I mean that a thing is caused by
another thing that is caused by itself. Abstractly, let E1, E2, and E3
be events such that E1 causes E2, and E3 causes E3, and E3 causes E1.
Of course, you may object that an event can only occur once in the time
stream and so E3, having occurred after E2 cannot cause E1. But there
are cases for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality#Current_topicsA more acceptable conception of it comes in the form of non-well-founded
sets and impredicative definitions where an object is _defined_ in terms
of a quantification over the whole set to which that object belongs, or
more simply, a set can be a member of itself.
More flaky conceptions of it are autopoiesis and Rosen's closure to
efficient cause. A more practical conception of it is co-evolution.
By "lexical mismatch", I mean that two languages are different (at
least) in terms of their vocabulary. So, a formal system with a set of
symbols {x,y,z} is lexically distinct from a formal system with a set of
symbols {x,y,p}. It should be clear that sentences formed in the former
may not have an equivalent in the latter. Lexical mismatch is the
simplest form. There can also be differences in grammar and/or axioms,
which would lead to a linguistic mismatch, which may also contribute to
complexity.
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095,
http://agent-based-modeling.com============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org