I'm not reading this carefully enough. I am selling my car which involves paperwork.
There are many systems with causal graphs with feedback loops. In genetic regulatory networks, for example. Is that downward causation? A classic example is the case if two ladders leaning against each other so that neither one falls. Each causes the other not to fall. Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Jul 20, 2020, 11:26 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[email protected]> wrote: > Right. I'm ignorant of Weismann's doctrine. But it does seem to imply > purely bottom-up causation. We *could*, I suppose talk of hierarchical > systems where the causal flow only went upward ... maybe a bit like the > causal cone defined by the speed of light in space-time. Everything within > the cone is "same layer causation" and cross-cone relations might be the > only time you'd need large-scale, collective effects. [⛧] > > The only way I can see to get any kind of downward causation in that case > is through iteration, as I mentioned with the sticks (1st stick is > completely free, 2nd stick is more constrained, ...). But you can remove > time and replace it with some other requirement, like no/minimal space > between tiles for sphere packing or, say, aperiodic tilings. In that case, > it's not only the tile shapes, but also *how many* of each shape you have > that impinges on their (micro) placement. > > > > [⛧] This popped up this morning: > https://uwaterloo.ca/astrophysics-centre/news/astrophysicists-release-largest-3d-map-universe-ever-created > > On 7/20/20 10:07 AM, Jon Zingale wrote: > > Maybe I am misremembering (which clearly happens), but didn't the > discussion > > of gen-phen-like maps arise in the context of goal-function > distinctions? In > > this latter class, we included the thermostat system where constraining > > systems to Weismann's doctrine would not be meaningful. Clearly, in the > > goal-function system, an individual that changes the thermostat dial > because > > they prefer the house to be at 60 degrees rather than 80 degrees (a > > variation on function) performs downwardly to affect the tolerance of the > > piece of metal or mercury switch (a variation on goal). Are we breaking > the > > semantic game by now demanding that our admissable gen-phen-like maps > > preserve Weismann's doctrine? I understood Glen's evocation to not be so > > constrained. > > > -- > ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
