On Behalf Of Douglass Carmichael
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 12:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] causality east and west
“bring people along is too direct, too pushy. Confucius said “If I show
someone one corner of a rectangle and they don’t come
gt; Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam On Behalf Of Douglass Carmichael
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 202
Great point! There's always a mesh. Isolating off a single, abstracted,
delusionally unitary region of the mesh is, I think, a natural tendency. Even
if, as in some Eastern sense, one buys into something like positive feedback
(impact of secondary effects over immediate effects) or even Utilitar
ompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
-Original Message-
From: Friam On Behalf Of Douglass Carmichael
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 10:04 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] causality east and west
A causes B western view,
A causes B western view, straight arrow.
The eastern view is look at the context of A and the context of B in widening
circles of effects at some point the circles will intersect. In the western
view secondary effects are discardedin the astern view secondary effect are
primary.
interesting
David,
How have you been? The CMU group that I worked in and Pearl's group at
UCLA worked in the same area. As I recall, he invented the concept of
d-separation and our group created algorithms to use it in inferring causal
models based on observational data (i.e. not experimental). My colleagu
I remember, a while back, frequent discussions about causality at the "mother
church." My memory is that those issues were never 'resolved'; perhaps because
we did not have Judea Pearl's - Book of Why - to provide us with a formal
mathematics to explain all of causality.
dave west
==
Beth, would you mind giving some examples that are more concrete and explain
a bit how they work. I'm not as familiar with the biology as you are. When
I say our economy is demand driven, that's not the same as saying that there
are drivers that affect it. Supply is a driver. That's
a completely d
I want to look at what Beth said more closely. See below.
-- Russ
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:50 PM, wrote:
> G'day,
>
> For me its also where we perceive the "average" constraint is. In economic
> systems we think of them being demand driven, but I know of plenty of cases
> where production w
You're right. A command economy is very different. I was talking about a
market economy. And perhaps by definition a market economy is demand-driven
since there are no markets without demand.
-- Russ
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:13 PM, wrote:
>I suggested that a basic difference is that ecol
Thanks for the comments Patrick,
Gaia bothers me a bit. As you say, it may not be just "anthropomorphic
babble", but it sounds a lot like it--especially if referred to as
"she/her." Someone on the Friday group also mentioned Gaia. I had this to
say.
As generally understood the Gaia hypothesis
Carl, Jack,
Carl Tollander wrote:
> That said, I like theory anyhow, but in order to approach any of these
> TOE's, I've found that it helps to seek some understanding of their
> historical context (such as from the math and physics community blogs
> we've referred to elsewhere). I found some
I've been urging more people to read Stephenson's "Quicksilver", for
some sense of how new theories are embedded in historical context. The
first of many fine pithy quotes from the book,
"Those who assume hypotheses as first principles
of their specualtions...may indeed form an
Per our discussion at Friam, here is an article with some radical TOEs. One,
Causal Dynamical Triangulations, give us our four dimensional spacetime if
you make the assumption of causality. I wonder how many people in the world
really understand the concepts and mathematics behind these. Would I
, too.
>
> -J.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Bill Eldridge
> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 12:01 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Causality violations
>
exity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Causality violations
I think it's simply that Russel has his computer date wrong (one day early),
and while Outlook uses the local arrival time, Thunderbird uses the remote
sender's time.
Of course it's pretty absurd that in 2006 we still don
I think it's simply that Russel has his computer date wrong (one day early),
and while Outlook uses the local arrival time, Thunderbird uses the remote
sender's time.
Of course it's pretty absurd that in 2006 we still don't have computers on
networks naturally synchronized time-wise by default. A
That's strange, in my Mozilla Thunderbird (IMAP) e-Mail client
I can see the response from Russel before the original mail from
Nick about "Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 47". Microsoft's Outlook
displays it in the correct order:
Dates in Outlook
Russel's Mail Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 9:09
Nick's Mail
18 matches
Mail list logo
