No, I think you fully believe that. Where we disagree is that I think epiphenomena are purely an artifact of the formal language used. That means if your language is not formal, then you have no epiphenomena. All this informal talk you engage in, here, contains nothing like a well-defined thing we could name "epiphenomenon".
Take Frank up on reading the book on Lie groups or the Baez chapter. Or help Jon formalize it. Then, I think, we'll have a way to disentangle phenomena from epiphenomena ... and *then* we can falsify my claim that they don't validate against the real world. On 9/19/21 8:22 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > Whether something is epiphenomenal or not is in the eye of the beholder. > Glen thinks I disagree with that, but I don’t. Where we genuinely disagree, > I think, is in > the relative value of a life spent looking for frames that encompass other > frames. What might be an entertainment for him is kind of obsession for me. -- "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." ☤>$ uǝlƃ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
