Hi Russell Standish  

According to Leibniz's idealistic metaphysics, nothing is causal,
things just appear to happen by cause.  Their motions instead
occur according to a pre-established (a priori) harmony.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
11/6/2012  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen 


----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: Russell Standish  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-11-06, 01:01:59 
Subject: Re: Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems 


On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 04:45:55PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: 
> Dear Russell, 
>  
> I have my doubts about "causality" as a *complete* term: our 'systems', cf: 
> ecosystem etc. include the up-to-date inventory of knowables as in our 
> existing "MODEL" of the world - which grows over the millennia 
> stepwise. (The 'cause' of the lightning is no more the "ire" of Zeus). 
>  
> Whatever we include as 'causing' a change (whatever) is the portion of its 
> entailments selectable from said inventory (of yesterday). This causes the 
> uncertainty and occasional mishaps in our "world". Besides: our terms are 
> proportionate, content and qualia (may be) incomplete restricted to said 
> inventory, so the partial entailment we observe may seem satisfactory to 
> the actual 'model-item' we carry. (((How's THAT with AL?))) 

Not sure I fully ingest what you're saying here. Causality has to do 
with explanations, whilst correlations needn't. I think some of the 
notions of causality - eg Granger causality, have to do with 
quantifying the information flow between time series - if timeseries A 
provides more predictive information about time series B than some 
threshold (not necessarily arbitrary, but usually theory dependent), 
then we say that A Granger-causes B. It is not correlation, as 
correlation is bidirectional, whereas Granger-causality is not. Also A 
Granger-causes B can be read as series A explaining something about 
series B. 

> ------------------ 
> We had a little exchange on "random" earlier when you resorted to the term 
> (as I recall): as *provisonal (or conditional?) random* that may occur *under 
> the given conditions only*. 
> ((I just wrote to Hal R. that a "random walk" in evolution could lead *us, 
> humans* (back???) - maybe - to *DE*-velop into trilobites. Why not?)) 
>  
> John Mikes 
>  

That would be surprising, given we're not descended from trilobytes in 
the first place! 

--  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
Principal, High Performance Coders 
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au 
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to