9:20:06 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and CAUSALITY (was NOT complexity and
emergence)
Hi Nick,
Given the energy (and time!) apparently available to this thread, it
is with some trepidation that I poke my head out of the weeds. (On
the other hand, congratulations, Steve).
I like your last
Correct me if I'm wrong Nick, but isn't this all simply a case of hard
scientists (physicists, chemists etc.) understanding causality and
attributing it appropriately and soft scientists (biologists, ethologists
etc.) not?
Robert
. complexity and emergence (was: FRIAM and causality)
(Glen E. P. Ropella)
2. JungleDisk - Reliable online storage powered by Amazon S3 ? -
Jungle Disk (Owen Densmore)
3. Re: JungleDisk - Reliable online storage powered by Amazon S3
(Marcus G. Daniels
Having, alas, been one of the catalysts for this thread by asking who
believes in causality at a FRIAM meeting, I do occasionally agree with Nick
and
think the thread has wandered, perhaps not emerged. As St. Nick so aptly
expressed: it is about repeating patterns. Ultimately deep
Glen Marcus,
Well, hopefully returning to the main thread. The question seems to
concern an observation that information can be 'misused', letting people
capitalize on the interesting ways in which 'bad models' don't fit, to
display a 'reality' beyond the information which is both verifiably
Glen wrote:
No. Adjusting a rule is entirely different from adjusting a number.
The adjustment of a number merely explores a space. A number spectrum
does specify/describe a metric. So, for example, adjusting an integer
with particular boundaries for the model, say [-10, 100] provides a
]
explorations: www.synapse9.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 12:24 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
Glen,
Phil Henshaw on 12/06/2007 10:53 AM:
The hard part seems to be to take the first dark step to accepting
there might be a shape of another form that the measures
are missing
(like the whole tree or person). It means looking for how to best
extend and complete your image based
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Phil Henshaw on 12/07/2007 01:42 PM:
PH: I was impressed with the clarity of the abstract and their not
confusing biology, lab chemistry and computer model references. Figure
1 puzzles me though. I get your suggestion that this shows a way
Glen,
Excellent! If they're honestly derived from physical things, like
network maps, say, every model is going to be both a 'bad' model and a
helpful one. The principle comes to this complex statement, yes, but I
think also to a simple one that to understand anything you need multiple
measures.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Russell Standish on 12/05/2007 04:14 PM:
It blocks learning about what we
can't write formulas for, though, so I think it should be among the
first things to go.
What we cannot write formulas for (by which I mean find
compressible descriptions
And in that
sense, even if I can't write a formula for tying one's shoes, I can
still _learn_ how to tie shoes. Further, I can use the inaccurate
(bad) formulas for how to tie one's shoes as a way to actually learn
how to tie shoes. Even further, I can _teach_ others how to tie their
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 01:23:00PM -0700, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
And in that
sense, even if I can't write a formula for tying one's shoes, I can
still _learn_ how to tie shoes. Further, I can use the inaccurate
(bad) formulas for how to tie one's shoes as a way to actually learn
how
Biting my lip over here. [Don't respond...DON'T RESPOND!]
--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
On Dec 5, 2007 5:14 PM, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a very Phil Henshaw response - its a bit hard to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OK. I hope this is the last time I have to break the threading. My
upgrade is stalled; so my exim4 should work fine for now. [grin]
Phil on Thu Nov 29 at 11:46:09 EST 2007 wrote:
Sure, while not discarding too much, and we should still keep the
This is a very Phil Henshaw response - its a bit hard to know how to
respond to this.
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 10:14:41AM -0500, Phil Henshaw wrote:
Russell,
That's a sound way to choose the most valuable model of the moment, but
it won't help you with what models can't show. You need to
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:11 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
All scientific models/theories tend to lie on a plane with
the axes
. Ropella [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:51:12
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Günther Greindl on 11/21/2007 04:48 PM:
So you probably won't even support sup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 11/27/2007 06:05 AM:
Nearly all you say fits closely with my approach, except the word
'any' in the following quote.
To the contrary, I assume every actual system has an inherent
'hierarchicability' (following the word
On Nov 18, 2007 11:58 AM, Nicholas Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Robert,
Does a blank white wall have a pattern on it?
Nick
Nick - *YES *- Robert
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Günther Greindl on 11/17/2007 01:12 PM:
Ok - but the gooey glob is also only a description - we can extend the
gooey glob to contain the whole universe (the Hubble volume). Would you
say that at that level we have total ordering?
I CANNOT extend
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Loosing one's temper is a wonderful example, because it contains all
the paradoxes we are discussing and more. You point to loosing temper
as if were something knowable in an instant. But the knowledge
required to perceive a loosing of temper is smeared across
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
On Nov 18, 2007 11:58 AM, Nicholas Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert,
Does a blank white wall have a pattern on it?
Nick
Nick - YES - Robert
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
: RE: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
Nick,
Well, ... You say causation is not the sort of thing one can point to. I can,
however, point to my loosing my temper, be readily understood, and surmise
accurately that if I had better sense I might say the same things more
helpfully without
On Nov 16, 2007 5:32 PM, Nicholas Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip So, in my idiotic postivisitic mode, I assert, that pattern IS
what causality is. I mean why would one bother to attribute it anywhere
else than where we know it.
No it's not Nick, as witnessed by the following
- Original Message -
From: Robert Holmes
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group;[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11/17/2007 8:47:43 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
On Nov 16, 2007 5:32 PM, Nicholas Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
So, in my idiotic
Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; caleb.thompson
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11/16/2007 4:41:46 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
NIck,
Didn't you place the only things that physcally cause anything, the
individual hammers and the individual
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 intertwined.
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
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 that).
and this nail in this instance.
All the best,
Nick
- Original Message -
From: Phil Henshaw
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; caleb.thompson
Sent: 11/16/2007 4:41:46 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM
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 cause
-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.
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied
Complexity
Coffee Group friam@redfish.com
Date: 11/12/2007 1:29:08 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
Hi Nick,
I assume you already know about the work Judea Pearl did to define a
notion of causality in the context
]; caleb.thompson
Subject: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
The truth arises from arguments amongst friends -- David Hume
One of my goals at Friam, believe it or not, is actually to get some
fundamental issues settled amongst us. We had, last week, a brisk
discussion about causality. I dont
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:
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
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
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
Sent: 11/12/2007 5:53:01 AM
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
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
PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group friam@redfish.com
Date: 11/12/2007 1:29:08 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
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
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 another
43 matches
Mail list logo
