Do you mean "exogenous"? If so, I'm not asserting that it need be exogenous, only higher order. I.e. the composition of the distributions between 2 processes has to be a function of those distributions. In order for such a function to be a concrete mechanism, there has to be a mechanical memory of the entire distribution, which I think limits how Markovian it can be. This is part of why I talked about truncation in the original proposition. The scope of the composition function truncates the parts it ignores. And I can see how your river delta idea can be coerced to fit that. But I worry that it's too limiting and SteveS's comment about self-negating comes back into play. It's close to a strawman in that it'll obviously lack anything that even kindasorta looks like "free will".
On 6/22/20 12:46 PM, Jon Zingale wrote: > In any > case, I am unclear how the composition scope might need to be extraneous. -- ☣ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
