Perhaps this will have been related to the Thiotimoline effect,
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline
First identified in Issac Asimov's 1948 paper,
"The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline".

Carl

Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> All,
>
> Re: cause before effect:  One night, just before midnight, I got three
> email messages from a friend in NZ which my mailer dutifully carried at the
> head of my list (most recent) for 24 hours.  
>
> Re: evolutionary economics:  Has anyboyd read "Second Nature" by Haim Ofek.
> Not evolutionary economics in the sense that Russell was speaking, no
> doubt, but a heluva ride.  I wish somebody else would read it and tell me
> what they think.  
>
> Nick 
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson
>
>
>   
>> [Original Message]
>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Date: 7/27/2006 7:38:30 AM
>> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 51
>>
>> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
>>      [email protected]
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>      http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>    1. Re: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 47 (Nicholas Thompson)
>>    2. Re: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 47 (Russell Standish)
>>    3. Re: Is it economics or biology (Russell Standish)
>>    4. Causality violations (Jochen Fromm)
>>    5. We meet at 7 pm (Mike Oliker)
>>    6. Re: Causality violations (Bill Eldridge)
>>    7. Re: Causality violations (Jochen Fromm)
>>    8. Re: Causality violations (Russell Standish)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:45:06 -0400
>> From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 47
>> To: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,  "The Friday Morning
>>      Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[email protected]>
>> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>>
>> Russell, 
>>
>> One of the first things I intend to do when I have retired in January is
>> read book with titles like yours, but until then, you will need to wave
>> excerpts at me or something.  
>>
>> Do you know anything about the New Realism of the 1910's at Harvard.  A
>> group of james students wrote a New Realist Manifesto which seems to have
>> been based on the Scottish Realism.  Those students included Edward Holt,
>> who spawned jj and ej gibson (of ecological psych fame) and E. C. Tolman,
>> the inventor of cognitive behaviorism, and ultimately a traitor to the
>> cause in my opinion. 
>>
>> The basic idea is that reality can be cut in various ways and different
>> observers SEE different cuts.  All cuts are REAL properties of the object
>> but also manifestations of the point of view of the observor.  To use
>>     
> terms
>   
>> I am not real comfortable with, properties of things as seen by people are
>> both "out there"  AND "in the head" of the observer. 
>>
>> Nick  
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas Thompson
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson
>>
>>
>>     
>>> [Original Message]
>>> From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
>>>       
>> Coffee Group <[email protected]>
>>     
>>> Date: 7/27/2006 12:16:09 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 47
>>>
>>> Sort of like I say in my paper "The Importance of the Observer in
>>> Science" you mean? Or in my book "Theory of Nothing".
>>>
>>> (Assuming I have correctly grokked your word "intensional").
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 10:40:24AM -0400, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Robert Holmes writes, 
>>>>
>>>> "So if entropy is emergent and gravity is emergent and any other force
>>>> mediated by a subatomic particle is emergent, just how useful is it to
>>>>         
>> label
>>     
>>>> something 'emergent' in this way? If the definition of emergence is so
>>>> broad, how can we usefully use it?"
>>>>
>>>> SOOOOOOOOOO, this seems to suggest that emergence is one of those
>>>> properties which are not brick wallk properties of the world except in
>>>>         
>> so
>>     
>>>> far as they are seen from a particular point of view.  I.E,
>>>>         
> intensional
>   
>>>> properties.  (sorry everybody).  .  But now, like Robert, I am
>>>>         
>> beginning to
>>     
>>>> wonder if all properties arent intensional.  I mean that was sort of
>>>> Einstein's point, wasnt it?  I hate it when words I love and concepts
>>>>         
> I
>   
>>>> live by suddenly crumble in my hands. 
>>>>
>>>> Rushing, 
>>>>
>>>> Nick 
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> Nicholas Thompson
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> -- 
>>> *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
>>> is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
>>> virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
>>> email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
>>> may safely ignore this attachment.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   
>>> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
>>> Mathematics                                        0425 253119 (")
>>> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                     [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
>>> Australia                               
>>>       
>> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
>>     
>>>             International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
>>>
>>>       
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 05:02:33 +1000
>> From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 47
>> To: Nicholas Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>      <[email protected]>
>> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 12:45:06AM -0400, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>>     
>>> Russell, 
>>>
>>> One of the first things I intend to do when I have retired in January is
>>> read book with titles like yours, but until then, you will need to wave
>>> excerpts at me or something.  
>>>       
>> That's why the paper might be up your alley. Also Chapter 1 of my book
>> is also available at
>> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/ToN-chapter1.pdf and is a precis
>> of the main argument in the book.
>>
>>     
>>> Do you know anything about the New Realism of the 1910's at Harvard.  A
>>> group of james students wrote a New Realist Manifesto which seems to
>>>       
> have
>   
>>> been based on the Scottish Realism.  Those students included Edward
>>>       
> Holt,
>   
>>> who spawned jj and ej gibson (of ecological psych fame) and E. C.
>>>       
> Tolman,
>   
>>> the inventor of cognitive behaviorism, and ultimately a traitor to the
>>> cause in my opinion. 
>>>
>>> The basic idea is that reality can be cut in various ways and different
>>> observers SEE different cuts.  All cuts are REAL properties of the
>>>       
> object
>   
>>> but also manifestations of the point of view of the observor.  To use
>>>       
> terms
>   
>>> I am not real comfortable with, properties of things as seen by people
>>>       
> are
>   
>>> both "out there"  AND "in the head" of the observer. 
>>>       
>> No, I hadn't heard of them, but the basic reasoning you mention sounds
>> familiar. 
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> -- 
>> *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
>> is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
>> virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
>> email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
>> may safely ignore this attachment.
>>
>>
>>     
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   
>> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
>> Mathematics                                 0425 253119 (")
>> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                      [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
>> Australia                               
>>     
> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
>   
>>             International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
>>
>>     
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: not available
>> Type: application/pgp-signature
>> Size: 189 bytes
>> Desc: not available
>> Url :
>>     
> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060727/d03570fb/attachment-0001.b
> in 
>   
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 05:28:26 +1000
>> From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Is it economics or biology
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>      <[email protected]>
>> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>> Like anything in the mainstream press, tantalisingly short on
>> detail. I argued back in 1996 that Economics needs to take on an
>> evolutionary outlook in a paper that was ultimately published in
>> 2000. Indeed, I used the same Mashallian quote mentioned in  the article:
>>
>> Standish, R.K. (2000) ``The Role of Innovation within Economics'', in
>> Commerce, Complexity and Evolution, Barnett, W. et al (eds) (Cambridge
>> University Press, New York), pp61-79. arXiv:nlin.AO/0007005
>>
>> The reason why evolutionary economics has not taken off that much is
>> that not enough bright minds are focussed on the problem, and
>> economics is not the same as biology - excessive use of analogy
>> actually clouds understanding.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 06:40:29PM -0600, Tom Johnson wrote:
>>     
>>> Of interest to the list, I hope.
>>> >From the current issue of The Economist:
>>> The Cambrian age of
>>>
>>>       
> economics<http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7189617
>   
>>> Evolutionary economics is surviving, but not thriving
>>>
>>> http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7189617
>>>
>>> -- tj
>>>
>>> ==========================================
>>> J. T. Johnson
>>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
>>> www.analyticjournalism.com
>>> 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
>>> http://www.jtjohnson.com               [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
>>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
>>> existing model obsolete."
>>>                                                   -- Buckminster Fuller
>>> ==========================================
>>>       
>>> ============================================================
>>> 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
>>>       
>> -- 
>> *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
>> is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
>> virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
>> email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
>> may safely ignore this attachment.
>>
>>
>>     
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   
>> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
>> Mathematics                                 0425 253119 (")
>> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                      [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
>> Australia                               
>>     
> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
>   
>>             International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
>>
>>     
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:37:01 +0200
>> From: "Jochen Fromm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: [FRIAM] Causality violations
>> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
>>      <[email protected]>
>> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"
>>
>>
>> That's strange, in my Mozilla Thunderbird (IMAP) e-Mail client 
>> I can see the response from Russel before the original mail from
>> Nick about "Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 47". Microsoft's Outlook 
>> displays it in the correct order:
>>
>> Dates in Outlook
>> Russel's Mail Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 9:09
>> Nick's Mail Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 6:46
>>
>> Dates in Thunderbird
>> Nick's Mail Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 6:45
>> Russel's Mail Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 21:02
>>
>> Perhaps it has something to do with the time shift between
>> USA and Australia. However, the message ordering in Thunderbird 
>> shows clearly a violation of causality: the effect is visible 
>> before the cause. Causality violations are one reason that makes 
>> distributed and complex systems so hard to understand, see
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAS-Group/message/1149 
>>
>> -J.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 03:25:34 -0600
>> From: "Mike Oliker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: [FRIAM] We meet at 7 pm
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,     "ACG/Friam ABQ listserv"
>>      <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]>
>> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> complexity group / chaos club 
>>  
>> meeting time: 7 pm Thursday July 27
>> meeting place: Mike Oliker's (directions below)
>> meeting topic: the article "Antichaos and Adaptation" by Stuart Kauffman.
>> The article is 
>>                          available online at
>> www.covchap.com/articles/antichaos.htm
>>  
>> DIRECTIONS TO MIKE OLIKER'S HOUSE
>> 8700 Canyon Run Rd. NE, ABQ, NM 87111
>> (505) 821-3407
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>     
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ComplexityABQ/post?postID=Eh2Oqly5y1Z8x3inOsN
>   
>> lqVIUuRDhqb0SWkjD5ORx1Ij4QirlIwdAaD-Z-o7wLXud1R2GzXbAU1EaHo0Wk4n1_N0> 
>> I-25 to San Mateo going East.
>> Left onto Academy, also going East.
>> Go past Wyoming and Wal-Mart's and turn just after St. Joseph Health Stop
>> onto Moon.
>> Take Moon one block south to Canyon Run.  I'm at #8700 2.5 blocks up on
>>     
> the
>   
>> right, with a black mailbox
>>  
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>>     
> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060727/8d3344f8/attachment-0001.h
> tml 
>   
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:00:52 +0200
>> From: Bill Eldridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Causality violations
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>      <[email protected]>
>> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>>
>> I think it's simply that Russel has his computer date wrong (one day
>>     
> early),
>   
>> and while Outlook uses the local arrival time, Thunderbird uses the remote
>> sender's time.
>>
>> Of course it's pretty absurd that in 2006 we still don't have computers on
>> networks naturally synchronized time-wise by default. At a minimum to
>>     
> within
>   
>> a second or two.
>>
>> Jochen Fromm wrote:
>>     
>>> That's strange, in my Mozilla Thunderbird (IMAP) e-Mail client 
>>> I can see the response from Russel before the original mail from
>>> Nick about "Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 47". Microsoft's Outlook 
>>> displays it in the correct order:
>>>
>>> Dates in Outlook
>>> Russel's Mail Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 9:09
>>> Nick's Mail Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 6:46
>>>
>>> Dates in Thunderbird
>>> Nick's Mail Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 6:45
>>> Russel's Mail Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 21:02
>>>
>>> Perhaps it has something to do with the time shift between
>>> USA and Australia. However, the message ordering in Thunderbird 
>>> shows clearly a violation of causality: the effect is visible 
>>> before the cause. Causality violations are one reason that makes 
>>> distributed and complex systems so hard to understand, see
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAS-Group/message/1149 
>>>
>>> -J.
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 7
>> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:11:17 +0200
>> From: "Jochen Fromm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Causality violations
>> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
>>      <[email protected]>
>> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"
>>
>>
>> Yes, you are right. If I sort after the remote sender's time, Outlook
>> shows the wrong message order, too.
>>
>> -J.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>     
> Behalf
>   
>> Of Bill Eldridge
>> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 12:01 PM
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Causality violations
>>
>> I think it's simply that Russel has his computer date wrong (one day
>>     
> early),
>   
>> and while Outlook uses the local arrival time, Thunderbird uses the remote
>> sender's time.
>>
>> Of course it's pretty absurd that in 2006 we still don't have computers on
>> networks naturally synchronized time-wise by default. At a minimum to
>>     
> within
>   
>> a second or two.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 8
>> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:38:06 +1000
>> From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Causality violations
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>      <[email protected]>
>> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>> I do autosyncronise my computers clock with NTP. Where it all goes
>> pear shaped is that I send mail from Linux running on VMWare running
>> on top of Windows. Everytime windows hibernates, VMWare's clock gets
>> screwed up.
>>
>> I have a menu item that connects to NTP and syncronise's Linux's
>> clock, but that requires me to remember to run it, and it doesn't
>> always work - even when I am online...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 01:11:17PM +0200, Jochen Fromm wrote:
>>     
>>> Yes, you are right. If I sort after the remote sender's time, Outlook
>>> shows the wrong message order, too.
>>>
>>> -J.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>>       
> Behalf
>   
>>> Of Bill Eldridge
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 12:01 PM
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Causality violations
>>>
>>> I think it's simply that Russel has his computer date wrong (one day
>>>       
> early),
>   
>>> and while Outlook uses the local arrival time, Thunderbird uses the
>>>       
> remote
>   
>>> sender's time.
>>>
>>> Of course it's pretty absurd that in 2006 we still don't have computers
>>>       
> on
>   
>>> networks naturally synchronized time-wise by default. At a minimum to
>>>       
> within
>   
>>> a second or two.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> 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
>>>       
>> -- 
>> *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
>> is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
>> virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
>> email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
>> may safely ignore this attachment.
>>
>>
>>     
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   
>> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
>> Mathematics                                 0425 253119 (")
>> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                      [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
>> Australia                               
>>     
> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
>   
>>             International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
>>
>>     
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Friam mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>>
>> End of Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 51
>> *************************************
>>     
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
>
>
>   

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

Reply via email to