The link doesn't work for me. But I suspect: Yes! In all my posts, I've tried to push for "True as far as it goes" ... or "true for now, maybe not true later", "true over here but not over there", etc. Time is an important, but not the only factor. Feedback often assumes time. But all it really needs is some monotonically increasing parameter. If Perician metaphysics hinges on the stability and uniqueness of the limit points, then it seems a lot like ToEs in physics, it may explain some very persnickety parts of reality, but it'll struggle with things like unicorns or, say, racism.
On 12/31/18 12:15 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > At CMU I implemented an algorithm called CCD (cyclic causal discovery) > which could infer feedback in causal graphs from observational data. Is > that relevant? > > Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., and Scheines, R. Kauffman, S.,Aimale, V., & > Wimberly, F. (2001). Constructing Bayesian Network Models of Gene > Expression Networks from Microarray Data > <http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/scheines/bnforgenes.pdf>, in *Proceedings > of the Atlantic Symposium on Computational Biology, Genome Information > Systems and Technology*, Duke University, March. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
