|
JohnM,
See
interposed.
Regards,
Tim
Tim, you spoil me. I will copy out
(extrapose?) some excerpts for my comments, the total is readable in the
archives....(to put it in context).
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: Causality vs. Entailment
JohnM,
See
interposed.
Regards,
Tim
I Start with
2 quotes:
TG: For me, 'entailment' indicates the whole relation,
not just the "consequential termination".
(May I correct my
word I used ("start(up)")
into: origination? I hope that eliminates the time-wise or other sequencing
notion)
"...I see entailments as required to be embedded in a
realm of either causal or inferential relations.
..."
Embedded?
Firstly I
fail to realize "causal" vs. "inferential" difference. Cause makes
inference, inferential is caused. I feel an artificial game with words. No
matter that we are used to it.
TG: I am not sure what you mean by "cause makes
inference, inferential is caused". If you mean that inferential
processes in someone's inner world are part of someone else's external
world and are therefore causally based in the view of that second person, I
agree. But the relationship between inference and causality is complex, so I
think we cannot just reduce inference to causality.[see EL p.
95]
You give two perfectly reductionist
model-examples (vectors and the "underlying realm") which is OK, but we want
to expand beyond our set model-boundaries into totality.
Would you (could you) identify "natural
vectors" or unlimited necessity - both without the modeling limitations?
Remember: expanding from the 'map' into the 'territory' is only a widening
out just into a wider model. Still not the 'maximum
one'.
TG: Hmmm, I cannot think of
a way to phrase it that would probably be satisfactory to your
stipulation.
Secondly: if you call "relations" (I
simplified your expressions) as "entailment", why don't you just call them
"relations" ? does the fancy word 'entailment' add meaning to 'relation'?
if yes, why the identity? Can you
describe the 'difference' as other than causal and necessity?
"...'causality' is the set of necessary relations which
occur in the external world."
What would
you deem "unnecessary" in the natural world?
TG: It wouldn't be necessary vs. unnecessary. It
would be relations among phenomena that correlate in a necessary (in
the logical sense) manner, and other relations between phenomena that do not
correlate in this way.
There is a 'set' of necessary
conditions only for a model to occur. Our select 'goals' don't identify the
natural process.
Then again
"external world"? you probably mean 'ambience' which includes
ourselves, especially if considering 2-way affecting. (In some posts I,
too, was negligeant in this).
TG: Yes, 'ambience' =
'external world'. [LI p. 41]
"the
ambience is not entirely arbitrary or whimsical; there are relations (e.g.,
causal relations) manifest in the world of phenomena)" [LI p.
58].
Is your quote
not edited? I would rather read "entirely not" for the 'not
entirely'.
TG: I think "entirely not" would be a very
sweeping claim about all the relations in the external world which we do not
know for sure. By using "not entirely", this allows us to not assume too much;
after all, perhaps the external world does have some qualities which to us are
"whimsical".
Are these
(ambience
related, ie. wholistic) 'causal relations' - as we spoke here:
'entailment -relations'? unless the 2 words are interchangeable. Did
RR differentiate between them? The "e.g." allows for both
versions.
TG: My view is that
the term "causal entailment" means that entailments in the external
world are built of causal relations. I think the "e.g." (as opposed to "i.e.") is like the
"not entirely" phrase: it makes a less sweeping assumption about the
external world.
The "world of
phenomena" refers to our observational model, separating the stuff within
our
epistemicly so far disclosed knowledge-base from the still
undiscovered. Unless you read into 'phenomena' the (so far) unobserved as
well.
TG: The latter. 'world of phenomena' = 'external
world' = 'ambience'.
You see. every word implies some mental
direction, we have to agree on the meanings to have a mutual plattform.
Think of HP who explained some words differently. I don't hold "my way" as
the truth, I'll change it whenever I get a "better way" - not in form of a
personal opinion, but logically (acceptably for me) supported.
It is so easy
to use multi-meaning words into long sentences to press a point. I think
with much less time and effort spent so far on wordly misunderstandings (and
aggrevations) we could have already compose a RR-glossary to clear the
meanings at least for ourselves.
I was so glad
to detect and settle in my mind "entailment" as consequence, (not restricted
to modeling limitations) and now I see a lot of complications into it.
Thanks for
replying
John
|