[Ian] Krim you quoted me here .. "Certainly there is interaction and higher levels can and do impact lower levels, a point taken up by Ian and occasionally Arlo. But no higher level pattern can materially disrupt the lower level patterns it depends upon without drastic consequences."
And then took exception to Gav's tetralemma version of both and neither, top down and bottom-up. Gav is right. The causation is in both directions (even in forward time - whatever that is) Causation is in fact a pretty limited metaphor here - I prefer Paul (Turrner)'s "dependent arising". [Krimel] I guess if you think that the jury is out on the 2nd Law, that works. As long as you keep in mind that causal statements are probabilistic in both direction. [Ian] Of course higher patterns CAN disrupt lower patterns, the point is it is BETTER if they don't do this without caution for the consequences. (This principle is called "hygiene" in some circles. To take a literal example ... having the rest-rooms cleaned in your place of work has no value to your occupation, but has huge negative value if allowed to not do happen.) [Krimel] If by BETTER you mean a fortuitous change in probability; sure. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
