Thanks, Brent, at least you read through my blurb. Of course I am vague - besides I wrote the post in a jiffy - not premeditatedly, I am sorry. Also there is no adequate language to those things I want to refer to, not even 'in situ', the ideas and terms about interefficient totality (IMO more than just the TOE) are still sought of. We have only the old language of the (models - based) quotidien and scientific terms like your "in the physicists' sense" and similar.
BTW: ""no action at a distance"? what would you call a Mars-to-Earth term when NASA is sending an order and the module on Mars starts digging? I think you may consider the "beam" a 'connecting' (physical) space-term? I hope to be in the ballpark of your model-based (physicalistic) causality's *extension* in a sense: (I never considered my position in an 'epistemic sense') but think of your (physical) distance as 'unrelated', relevant to more than just measurable space, in any 'dimension' we may (or still cannot) think. I consider sometimes 'causality' as some *backwards-"deterministic"* in the sense that everything is 'e/affected' by other changes (relations) - as in: nothing generates itself. (In this respect I shove the "ORIGIN" under the rag, because I acknowledge that it is beyond our limited mental capabilities - and I don't want to start with unreasonable assumptions. (Yes, in my 'narrative' about a Big Bang fantasy - closer to *human common sense logic* starts with a Plenitude-assumption, a pretty undetailed image, giving rise only to some physically-mathematically followable(?) process of the *mandatory* occurrence of the unlimited (both in quality and number) * universes*, but I am ready to change it to a better idea any time.) I wonder if I added to the obscurity of my language. If yes, I am sorry. John M On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > 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 conclusions 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
