Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> Let's try this: To say that a probability attaches to an event at an
> instant is to commit this fallacy. What we know is a past relative
> frequency of relevant conditions and relevant consequences. Instantaneous
> probability is a fiction.
>
> "Cause" is just a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nicholas Thompson on 11/12/2007 08:10 PM:
> Darn it! I cant get anybody to tangle with the fundamental thing I am
> saying here. Anytime we embody something that is true of the aggregate of
> [...]
> Like most people, I would prefer to be stoned to
David Breecker wrote:
> If I remember correctly (caveat: it's been 20 years, and I barely
> understood it then), Feynman's "Quantum Chromodynamics" said many
> things work well backwards, and there is no absolute forwards. Or
> something like that.
>
> But perhaps more interesting to this threa
Friends,
Darn it! I cant get anybody to tangle with the fundamental thing I am
saying here. Anytime we embody something that is true of the aggregate of
observables in a single unobservable case, we are committing a fallacy.
The locus classicus of this fallacy is mental causation, where we hy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Those attachments didn't come through to me. They seem to be Mac files
and binhex reports "Short file".
- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been
much of a da
If I remember correctly (caveat: it's been 20 years, and I barely
understood it then), Feynman's "Quantum Chromodynamics" said many
things work well backwards, and there is no absolute forwards. Or
something like that.
But perhaps more interesting to this thread, I'm reading a well-
resea
binxNGXD21L6r.bin
Description: application/applefile
Going for a blast into t#10F556
Description: Binary data
binznph81WfZd.bin
Description: application/applefile
John G. Cramer - Wikiped#10F648
Description: Binary data
FRIAM Ap
Orlando Leibovitz here. The October-December issue of What Is
Enlightenment magazine contains an article about the Big Bang that
discusses the concept of events preceding their cause...retrocausality.
It states that "Richard Feynman even offered mathematical proofs of how
certain properities of
Sure, data is good to have, but what would past behavior tell you about the
novel aspects of new behavior, and how would you be able to tell that from
incomplete data on the past, anyway? For original behavior it would seem the
usual tools don't help much, unless you do what I do and. turn mode
Phil,
For give me for being dense, but I couldnt see the connection between my probe
and your response. Nick
- Original Message -
From: Phil Henshaw
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; caleb.thompson
Sen
Judea Pearl's web site is chock full of papers, too.
http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/jp_home.html
-- rec --
On Nov 12, 2007 2:11 PM, Tom Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick / Eric -
>
> Judea Pearl's book "Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference" is
> actually pretty good -- somewhat technic
Nick / Eric -
Judea Pearl's book "Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference" is
actually pretty good -- somewhat technical, and not always convincing
(to me :-), but worth reading . . .
http://www.amazon.com/Causality-Reasoning-Inference-Judea-Pearl/dp/0521773628/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/1
So she seems to be saying that developing systems, at our scale, as they
acquire experience/structure, regularly encounter coupled pairs of
observables that cannot be simultaneously measured to 'high' precision?
Pioneering work, indeed, but challenging for the modeler! Certainly
messes with t
Hi Nick,
I assume you already know about the work Judea Pearl did to define a
notion of causality in the context of inference on Boolean networks?
I don't have citations on this, because I only learned about it
recently in someone's talk, but I gather it is fairly widely known.
Happily it doesn't
I prefer Baez's "Diamonds and Rust" - great causality. Paul
** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lect
At that Friam I was talking about the difference between token causation (or
"actual" causation) and statistical causation (or "type" causation). Here
is a Wikipedia article that may help further the discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_mental_causation
Frank
From: [EMAIL PR
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> To say that X is the cause of Y is to accuse X of Y. Given my
> current belief that story-telling is at the base of EVERYTHING, I
> think you convince somebody that X is the cause of Y just by telling
> the most reasonable story in which it seems obvious that Y wou
At that same session, I was going on about the Kochen-Specker theorem,
asking for references, on the basis of Baez's comment about it in "This
Week's Finds" at http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week257.html. He was
discussion some ideas around the concept of a "topos":
"It basically means this:
But the question you posed wasn't whether you could make a subject
trivial, which anyone can do with any subject I think, but whether you
can make it meaningful.Can causality be meaningful is a much more
open question that does not have several of the traps built in it seems
to me.
The one ph
19 matches
Mail list logo
