[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: The difference between "Causal" and "Impredicative" loops, etc.



I'm glad you brought that up, Judith. I recall there was some confusion on the old list whether RR applied 'impredicative' to formal models only, or also to natural systems. And some of the phrasing in Essays adds to the confusion. For example:
    "I claim that, as material systems, organisms are full of such impredicativities." [EL p. 39]
It makes sense to me that 'impredicativity' is intended to apply to formal models only. I imagine that in the above quote he meant that the models of organisms are full of such impredicativities. And that it appears in the shorter form because for him all epistemology occurs via the modeling relation [EL p. 324] -- to understand organisms (or any other natural system) is to understand them via their models. So 'the models of' phrase is implicit.
 
How does that sound?
 
Regards,
Tim
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:***On Behalf Of Judith Rosen
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 8:07 AM
To: ***
Subject: The difference between "Causal" and "Impredicative" loops, etc.

One of the areas of confusion I'm seeing in many different settings, including the ISSS conference I attended in July, is caused by a difference my father specified in his use of the phrases "Causal loops" and "Impredicative loops". The ideas are connected because they both describe chains of entailment, which is why it gets confusing, but "Causal loops" exist in natural complex systems whereas "Impredicative loops" exist in formalisms (i.e., models).
 
There is also a difference between loops of this sort and simple recursions. Recursive loops are what happen in a room with a furnace and a thermostat, when it's cold outside.
 
There are many such boondoggles in his written work because he was fluent in so many modes of expressing the ideas he was seeing inside his head. The word "Dynamical" is another one. A "dynamical system" refers to Newtonian mechanics, whereas "dynamic" might not. So a "dynamical system" is not a complex system. Yet, the word "dynamic" certainly seems to apply to complexity. There's a world of difference, though. It's like the difference between perversity and perversion; they sound alike but they definitely don't imply each other! Yet I've seen people use the word "perverse" when what they meant was "perverted". Big difference there.
 
Judith