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.


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

Reply via email to