You can use whatever arbitrary words you'd like. Purposefully designed systems have bugs (i.e. epiphenomena, unintended, side-, additional, secondary, effects). Biological evolution does not. There is no bug-feature distinction there.
On November 28, 2021 9:40:23 PM PST, [email protected] wrote: >The former clearly has side effects (epiphenomena). I argue the latter does >not. > >Isnt that just the feature-bug distinction? > > > >n > >Nick Thompson > >[email protected] > >https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of ? glen >Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 11:14 PM >To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The epiphenomenality relation > > > >This sounds like impredicativity, which can be a problem in parallel >computation (resulting in deadlock or race). Unimplemented math has no problem >with it, though. And I'm guessing that some of the higher order proof >assistants find ways around it. A definitional loop seems distinct from >iteration. So, no; I don't see a problem with iteration in digital >computation. I simply don't think the intelligent design we do when >programming is analogous to biological evolution. The former clearly has side >effects (epiphenomena). I argue the latter does not. > -- glen ⛧ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
