|
Tim Gwinn wrote: I
view causality as the means by which entailments occur in the external world.
I would agree with that, but at the same time, it will always be
the case that there are far more entailments than what are being illustrated
causally. One of the purposes of conducting behavioral experiments, for
example, is to try and trigger causal "episodes" so that we can try
to get a glimpse into the entailment relations which make such
episodes happen (to "cause" the episodes).
Tim G. wrote: And
that if there are perceived to exist entailments which exceed a particular
representation of causality, then it is the representation(s) of causality which
need to be expanded/revised so that such entailments can be accounted for in
causal terms.
So this seems not quite accurate.
Our models are built with inferential entailments which are intended to mirror
the causal entailments of the real system we are modeling. In other words, the
behaviors we observe are "causality" but the entailment relations created by the
organization are what drive causality.
I think part of the confusion may
have to do with the different uses of the word "cause". Aristotelian analysis is
based on the four categories of "causation" which can actually be viewed as
entailment, rather than "causality". Inferential entailment is the entailment
which drives the inferences we can make in a modeling situation and causal
entailment is the entailment which drives causality.
So, to reword (my additions in
brackets) your assessment of Aristotelian analysis:
Tim wrote: So, for example, Aristotelian [analysis of]
causa[tion] offers temporal simultaneity of causal
[entailment] factors unlike a linear, chain-like, view of
[the sources and flow of] causality, and
Aristotelian [analysis] offers [explanations
for] causal potential in the category of final cause
[/causation].
I would equate entailment in a system with what you called "causal
potential".
Tim wrote: But the
Aristotelian picture falls short in other ways, and so seems to me to lead to
the opportunity to create yet more comprehensive formalisms of
causality.
I agree. I think my father would also. In fact, I believe his work
is an attempt, on multiple fronts, to begin doing exactly that; with one little
change to your wording... On page 10 of Life, Itself:
Robert Rosen wrote: "There is, as yet, no
comprehensive investigation of the ideas I have sketched in the course of the
discussion above; they are too new. But it seems that such ideas, or ideas like
them, are necessary in many ways. I would in particular draw attention to the
way such ideas ultimately rest on entailment alone, on systems of entailment in
the material world (causal entailment) and in the world of formalisms or
mathematics (inferential entailment), and on comparisons or congruences
between such entailment systems. I have come to believe that the concept of
entailment provides a reliable anchorage for the scientific enterprise itself,
and I accordingly recommend it to your attention."
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 9:01
AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Causality vs.
Entailment
Regards,
Tim
Ayten's notion of entailment is accurate in depicting
entailment as sort of a form of "causal potential" although there is
more here than this. All causality is just a tiny fraction of the total
potential entailed by systems and their interactions. Entailment is also
independent of time or directionality, in that separate things (parts,
components, stages, interactivity, etc) can
both entail/be-entailed-by one another in totality, but not
necessarily directly or specifically (like the chicken and the
egg). Causality is dependent on time flow, among other things, where
entailment is not.
Entailment describes relations, including potential, in
totality. Causality describes what happens. In this way, causality
can be seen as a subset of the total entailment potential of
systems and can be used to try to learn about the entailment relations
within system organizations. It is entailment that Robert Rosen was
most seeking to understand because it would include causality (and
inference, as well-- which describes the version of entailment
expressed in modeling/simulations) within it. Entailment is the more
comprehensive category.
It's sort of like a situation where your pet dog reacts to
some new stimulus in ways you've never seen it behave before. Extreme
heat, extreme cold, earthquake, weather, whatever... The entailment
was always present, but this is the first causal example.
There have been cases of organisms that were thought to be
fully understood, only to have it suddenly become manifest that what we've
seen is only a very long larval stage and the organism undergoes a sudden
metamorphosis to reach some new stage (which we presume is the adult). The
Axolotl, of Mexico, was one such organism. It developed the capability of
breeding while still in its larval stage, a fairly well-known phenomenon
(neotony). In this case, the lakes where this salamander species lived was
at very high altitude. When taken to lower altitudes, the axolotls began to
metamorphose into a fairly ordinary salamander species.
My father was fascinated by the axolotl because he said it had
far more biological capability in its larval stage, which it lost when it
metamorphosed. For example, in the larval stage it can breathe air or use
its gills in an aquatic environment. It can completely regenerate an
entire limb if cut off. In its natural environment, the axolotl never
actually fulfills its entailed metamorphosis from larval stage to adult
stage, living its entire life in the larval stage. Thus, entailment and
causality diverge in the same species.
My father actually wrote a fictional short story based on this
phenomenon, entitled "What Really Happened To Jeff" or something like that,
where the main character is a college student whose roommate was
experimenting on axolotls and developed a theory that our current human form
may just be a case of arrested development in the larval stage. He
figured out how to trigger it and disappeared without a trace with no clues
as to what could have happened to him (except for the dessicated
sea squirt found lying on the floor of the lab...).
Entailment is what is responsible for side effects; the so
called "hidden variables" or unknown relations within a system being
studied.
Judith
|