This is a very useful example. It strikes me that all 3 composite tasks (magnification, inversion, and heating) are effects from the same mechanism, ray focusing. The extent to which the 3 tasks can be achieved by *replacing* that mechanism with a different one targets the problem nicely. I don't know of an expedient way to replace ray focusing in magnfication and the heating tasks [⛧]. But inversion might be achieved with a series of mirrors that don't focus the rays.
So we can say that ray focusing is a module w.r.t. task 2, but perhaps not tasks 1 and 3. And, as a module, some process of evolution *might* stumble upon this replacement at some point. [⛧] Obviously, there's a discussion to be had around how expedient such replacements would be. E.g. heating small points can obviously be achieved without focusing light. But the more complicated the mechanism to do that is, the less likely it is to be "lying around on the ground" for the tasker to find and use. Is the series-of-mirrors mechanism any simpler than the point-heating mechanism? Any more likely to be lying around for the tasker to find? These are questions we can only approach *after* we come to agreement on the concepts in the main text above, surrounding replacability. On 8/17/20 2:42 PM, Eric Charles wrote: > Example: > We see three kids playing in the yard, each playing with a magnifying glass. > We ask each the reason why they are doing what they are doing (and for the > sake of this example, we assume they all answer honestly). Kid 1 says, "I am > playing with the magnifying glass because it can make small things look > larger, allowing me to visually explore them better." Kid 2 says, "I am using > it to invert images, because it is funny to look at things upsidedown." Kid 3 > says, "I am playing with the magnifying glass because it can focus light rays > towards a spot on the ground, to heat it up." > > Of course, as the kids play, all of them do all three things at some point > (make image bigger, invert image, heat ground). But for each, only one of > them is the reason they are playing with the magnifying glass, and the other > two effects are coming along for the ride. If we could provide a device that > magnified without inverting the image, that toy would work just fine for Kid > 1. If we could provide one that inverted images without magnifying, that toy > would work just fine for Kid 2. If we provided something that heated the > ground with one of those other factors, that toy would work just fine for Kid > 3. Etc. > > If you aren't interested in that distinction, that's fine, but surely it is a > legitimate distinction for someone to be interested in. -- ↙↙↙ 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/
