FRIAM and causality

Posted by glen ep ropella on Nov 27, 2007; 3:01pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/FRIAM-and-causality-tp525252p525320.html

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

sy at synapse9.com on 11/27/2007 06:05 AM:

> 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.

Good point.  I was just thinking this over as I read Esfeld's review
(thanks G?nther).  On the one hand, the system can be projected onto
_any_ ordering.  But, as I think you're pointing out, some orderings
will be a close fit ("natural") and others will be like putting a square
peg into a round hole.  So, some projections will work better than
others.  (I have to qualify that with "for a particular purpose"
however. ;-)  And the projections that work best provide a better
measure of the system than others (for that particular purpose).

The part of Esfeld's review that got me thinking this way was the idea
that nonseparability and holism do not necessarily imply that we cannot
understand a system.  Similarly, the "hierarchicability" concept I used
is not intended to imply that all imputations of hierarchy/order are
equally [use|meaning]ful.

Another thought that keeps ricocheting around in my head is the problem
of my use of the word "ignorance".  My usage of the word is often
challenged; but, I keep using it anyway. [grin]  I'm stubborn.  But, by
"ignorance", I don't _merely_ mean "lack of knowledge" of a given person
or a set of people.  It also means the act or possibility of some
influence (element of cause) being negligible ... or marginalized. This
semantic hair splitting comes up in the Esfeld review, too, when he says:

"In none of these interpretations is any link from nonseparability and
holism to our ignorance of what nature is in itself."

If I use my definition of "ignorance", then nonseparability and holism
_do_ imply that a form of ignorance (i.e. the marginalization of
particular influences) always obtains.  Because we cannot know or
understand _everything_... because our models, by definition, cannot
ever be completely accurate, we _must_ consider some parts negligible.
(And by "we", I mean "any bounded entity that uses transduction across
that boundary to understand its environment" ... e.g. trees, ants,
cells, humans, etc.)

In the case of complex cause, we can make multiple projections into
various orderings and select the ones that work best (for a particular
purpose).  By such selection we can _approach_ an accurate understanding
of the system; but it is a limit process.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program. --
Milton Friedman

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

iD8DBQFHTDFSZeB+vOTnLkoRAkIkAJ9mrSUXXLc6xlRU9Z/Mi7IyDT6kWQCg40pi
AQ+O5hTPgb73a/9/ZrKBfio=
=WfS3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----