John Mikes wrote: > Brent wrote: > ... > *"But is causality an implementation detail? There seems to be an implicit > assumption that digitally represented states form a sequence just > because there > is a rule that defines(*) that sequence, but in fact all digital (and > other) sequences depend on(**) causal chains." ...* > > I would insert at (*): /*'in digitality'*/ - > and at (**): > /*'(the co-interefficiency of) unlimited'*/ - because in my vocabulary > (and I do not expect the 'rest of the world to accept it) the > conventional term /'causality'/, meaning to find /"A CAUSE"/ within the > (observed) topical etc. model that entails the (observed) 'effect' - > gave place to the unlimited inteconnections that - in their total > interefficiency - result in the effect we observed within a > model-domain, irrespective of the limits of the observed domain. > "Cause" - IMO - is a limited term of ancient narrow epistemic (model > based?) views, not fit for discussions in a "TOE"-oriented style. > Using obsolete words impress the coclusions as well.
I think I agree with that last remark (although I'm not sure because the language seems obscure). I meant causality in the physicists sense of "no action at a distance", not in an epistemic sense. Brent --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
