Hi,
That is cause-effect are
> not chains. They're not total orders. They're not linear or
> sequential. Every effect has multiple (usually a dense infinity)
> causes. And every cause has multiple (usually a dense infinity) of
> effects. And the causes and effects are inextricably intertwin
Hi Glen,
> I suspect the "orderability" only requires partial orders rather than
> total orders.
yes, but relativity implies locality - that means all causes for A and
all effects of A would have to be in the past/future light cone. So for
the causality at point A you would have total ordering.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Günther Greindl on 11/16/2007 12:30 PM:
>> I suspect the "orderability" only requires partial orders rather than
>> total orders.
>
> yes, but relativity implies locality - that means all causes for A and
> all effects of A would have to be in the pa
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
> Granted, one can hyper-focus some observation so as to artificially
> label some slice of the situation and call that slice the unit "A".
> But, that's an act of either description or prescription and is merely a
> _model_ of the situation (often an impoverished one at t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marcus G. Daniels on 11/16/2007 02:04 PM:
> So we make the model better by using a larger/different network of
> interactions instead of a (misplaced) slice, and try again!
> Then on to the next problem...
Well, sure. But, my comment was about Nick'
NIck,
Didn't you place the only things that physcally cause anything, the
individual hammers and the individual nails in the direct action of driving
a nail, in the place of the 'unreal' in you argument?The things that
don't actually exist except in our minds, the categories of hammers and of
n
Phil,
OK. So, it's images all the way down, so we cant get any traction there. I
suppose one might argue that a single hammering and a pattern of hammerings (if
you will) exist at different levels of organization, and you might prefer one
level to another for some reason external to this arg
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
> I don't imply that approximations cannot be obtained by taking various
> slices of X {x1, ..., xn} and Y {y1, ..., ym} and examining the
> sub-inference from xi -> yj. But, there will always be room for
> skepticism that your particular slices adequately capture the cau
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marcus G. Daniels on 11/16/2007 04:35 PM:
> A model either gives an edge on prediction or it doesn't. It is
> quantifiable provided there is consensus on the available variety of
> available input and output measurements and many such measurements.
