FRIAM and causality

Posted by Phil Henshaw-2 on Nov 27, 2007; 2:05pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/FRIAM-and-causality-tp525252p525319.html

Glen,
Nearly all you say fits closely with my approach, except the word 'any' in the following quote.

" To the contrary, I assume every actual system has an inherent
"hierarchicability" (following the word "extensibility") with respect to
any observer(s).  In other words, a system can be projected onto any
ordering, depending on the attributes imputed by the projection."

If you insert 'an' there instead, the combination of the possible and discovered orderings will reveal an image of other things.

Phil

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <[hidden email]>

Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:51:12
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

G?nther Greindl on 11/21/2007 04:48 PM:
> So you probably won't even support sup/inf hierarchy, I gather; I'm no
> Relativity pundit - do you think that follows from SR or is it a
> philosophical view?

It's somewhere in between.  But I don't derive the principle from SR.  I
derive it from everyday experience.  I tend to believe that any measure
(including relative ones like ordering and sup/inf) are mere aspects of
the underlying relations.  So, it's not that I don't support hierarchy.
 To the contrary, I assume every actual system has an inherent
"hierarchicability" (following the word "extensibility") with respect to
any observer(s).  In other words, a system can be projected onto any
ordering, depending on the attributes imputed by the projection.

No single ordering will tell us much about the system because (assuming
it's accurate) it only shows us one aspect (interpretation, usage) of
the system.  In order to make a claim that we've identified a
cause-effect graph, we have to make several (in some cases infinite)
projections based on various imputed attributes.

>> Such distinctions do NOT require one to consider [in]determinism.  But,
>> they do require one to consider historical accumulation and canalization
>> of causes, i.e. where and how ignorance (particularly of "negligible"
>> influences e.g. events very FAR away in space or time) affects causality.
>
> Ok, I see what you mean - but just to be careful with terminology: I
> guess you mean "affects the process under investigation causally" and
> not "affects causality" (last two words above paragraph)
> Former interpretation: we agree. Latter interpretation: we should
> discuss ;-))

Hmmm.  At first blush, I'd say I agree with _both_ phrasings.  I'd say
(weakly) that ignorance -affects the process under investigation
causally-.  And I'd say (strongly) that ignorance -affects causality-.
How do those phrases make a difference to you?

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly
enforced. -- Frank Zappa

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHSrMwZeB+vOTnLkoRAnBEAKDUVstCXsAVcclg8ASwwkT7B3peXACeLKzm
uExfuxs71G/8vLHcUXzu2fM=
=02+D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

============================================================
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