So the presence and absence of spark Plugs screens off cart Starting from the Gas tank and the Battery charge. To put in terms of ANOVA, there is no additivity of variance in the effects of G, B, and P upon S. One could, of course, achieve additivity by partitioning the variance into the various interactions in G, B, and P’s effects upon (Pr S). Or is the analogy between ANOVA and Currying completely without merit.
This only demonstrates further that FRIWWMFTT. N Nick Thompson <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:15 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf Nick, Somehow I don't relate to the sandwich case. Is having ham and having eggs different from having ham and eggs. Your second question may be related to the following: if A and B are both causes of C then A and B are not independent given C. Let C be "car starts", A be "gas in tank" and B be "battery charged". If you know there's gas in the tank and you observe that the car starts then you infer whether the battery is charged. There are numerous ways to object to this which are irrelevant. "What if the spark plugs are missing?" Etc. Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 11:50 AM <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Thanks, Glen, You consistently give me thoughts to chew on. Your introduction of "point of view' into the conversation is a "New Thought" for me, and I am grateful for it. In particular, it makes apt the metaphor of screening off. So, let it be the case that a third variable, C, also affects B. In that case, one could not make predictions about B to A without knowing about C. Thus, C screens off A from B. I think I get it. Nick Nick Thompson [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 12:00 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf I think I have useful things to say about it. But who knows for sure? I regard this sort of screen as if *from* the present looking into the past. From the perspective of the 3rd node, can you *see* the 1st node? Or can you only see the 2nd node? (I think I alluded to this in my post about Barbour's "Janus Point".) As to the meshed gears, as usual, it's useful to crack cause into multiple meanings like agency vs material, formal, and final. But you can also adopt a perspective. From the 2nd gear's perspective, the 1st gear is causing it to move. From the 1st gear's perspective, you are causing it to move. And from a multi-gear perspective, either you *or* the designer is causing the 2nd gear to move. Scoping, scoping, scoping, scoping. On 2/10/21 9:06 AM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, All, > > > > If any of you had any spare brain time, I am interested in the attached VERY > SHORT > <https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:a6e9c10b-06dc-4ea1-8ffa-d450df62489a> > article: > > > > I am struggling here with the idea of "screening off". Does it mean more or > less than the following: Granted that, If I had ham, and I had eggs, I would > have ham and eggs, having eggs screens off having ham from having ham and > eggs? Screening off seems a very odd metaphor. Is it a term of art in > logic? > > > > Also, a general problem I have with causality: My understanding of causality > is that event A can cause event B if and only if A is independently known > from B (an event cannot cause itself) AND occurs prior to B Now imagine two > perfectly meshed gears, such that motion in one is instantly conveyed to the > other. I turn gear A and gear B turns. Has the motion in A /caused/ the > turning of B or has my turning of A caused the motion of B? With the gears, > this may just seem like a fussy “in the limit” sort of question, but there > seem to be other phenomena where it’s worth asking. Does the discharge of > potential along the ionized (?) path CAUSE the lightning? > > > > I realize that the rest of you have spouses, dogs, cats, hobbies, and day > jobs, but any off hand thoughts you have on these matters would be greatly > appreciated. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
