Re: Causality vs Entailment

[Steve Johnson <***>]

I think I see where the basis for the disagreement
between Judith and Tim lies. In re-reading Rosen I
have found that sometimes he uses the word "causal" as
synonym of "material" or "that which is in the
ambience" but he never uses the word "causality" and
"cause" synonymously with "entailment". I think Tim's
comments are based on the adjectival form. Indeed
Rosen says on multiple occasions that there are only
two forms of entailment: causal and inferential. But I
would venture to say that in the context of this quote
"causal" has nothing to do with causality it is simply
a synonym of "material" or "that which is in the
ambience". What do you think Tim?

- Steve 

--- Judith Rosen <***> wrote:

> John M. wrote: I concluded (surprize!) that if
> insecure of a meaning, 
> I will take a look at MY dictionary (Webster and Am.
> Heritage), where 
> the latter only lists 'to entail' and both as: to
> have, secure 
> necessitate a (prescribed) succession (as in a will:
> inheritance), - a 
> consequence, - the Middle English word refers only
> to 
> property-succession. I had to conclude that my
> "tail-end" view was 
> acceptable.
> 
> That would be unwise, I'm afraid. The dictionary I
> use is the Webster 
> Universal Unabridged dictionary, which my father
> also had in his 
> reference library, although I can't be sure if he
> was using it the 
> first time he started looking into scientific
> entailment (probably 
> not). In any case, we are bound to find as many
> different ways of 
> defining any given word as there are dictionaries,
> and to make matters 
> more difficult, the scientific use of a word is
> often different enough 
> from the common uses that the scientific version
> needs to be defined 
> differently. Logic is a case in point.
> 
> For comparison purposes, I will share with the list
> what my dictionary 
> has as definitions of some of the words we have been
> discussing:
> 
> Entail: To cause or require as a necessary
> consequence; involve; 
> necessitate; as, "The plan entails work".
> 
> Entailment: The act of entailing or the state of
> being entailed. 
> Necessary sequence, as in the order of descent for
> an entailed 
> inheritance.
> 
> Causation: A causing or being caused; A causal
> agency; anything 
> producing an effect; Law Of Causation: the law that
> every event or 
> phenomenon results from an antecedent cause.
> 
> Cause: (noun) That which produces an effect or
> result; that from which 
> anything proceeds, and without which it would not
> exist.
> 
> Cause: (verb) To be the cause of; bring about; make
> happen; effect 
> (not to be confused with affect); induce; produce.
> 
> Clearly, these terms are closely related and have
> also often been used 
> interchangeably just as complexity is often used to
> refer to what my 
> father described as "complicatedness" or
> "intricacy". However, since 
> this list is about trying to understand Robert
> Rosen's usage, I 
> promise you that the way my father saw these terms
> was as follows:
> 
> In the general case (looking at systems or even the
> entire universe in 
> totality), entailment is what drives causality.
> Causality is how we 
> learn about entailment.
> 
> In specific situations, these labels are context
> dependent because, in 
> complex systems (especially living systems), the
> effect of one process 
> can be the cause of another processes. And-- in the
> case of an 
> entailment loop, one would have to straighten out
> the loop or look at 
> a linear piece of the loop to try and label anything
> as a cause and 
> its resulting effect.  Yet, we don't have to do any
> of this in order 
> to speak about the loop as a self-entailment loop.
> In other words, we 
> can discuss entailment without having specific
> contexts. This is how 
> we can say that all living systems have the same
> organizational 
> entailment patterns, causing life as a consequence,
> even though the 
> variety of living systems, just looking at the sheer
> number of species 
> we know about, would make it seem that there is no
> generality among 
> them at all.
> 
> I say again: Entailment is inherent in the set of
> organizational 
> relations of a given system, it refers to the
> logical consequences of 
> those relations as specified by a particular
> organization. This is 
> what relational science is all about and it is also
> why we can create 
> models which echo the consequences of a system's
> organization. The 
> entailment patterns retain their information even
> when transferred to 
> a formal system. When you run a simulation, then,
> you are testing the 
> entailment patterns of your models using
> cause-and-effect (causality).
> 
> Judith
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: John M
>   To: ***
>   Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 9:50 AM
>   Subject: [ROSEN] Causality vs Entailment
> 
> 
>   Tim, this is an 'entailment' to our yesterday's
> entailment posts. I 
> will explain, why.
> 
>   I concluded (surprize!) that if insecure of a
> meaning, I will take a 
> look at MY dictionary (Webster and Am. Heritage),
> where the latter 
> only lists 'to entail' and both as: to have, secure
> necessitate a 
> (prescribed) succession (as in a will: inheritance),
> - a 
> consequence, - the Middle English word refers only
> to 
> property-succession. I had to conclude that my
> "tail-end" view was 
> acceptable.
>   As to RR's preferred usage, I find it in a closer
> relationship with 
> the 'anticipation' concept (as in "what has to - or
> may follow) than 
> with the 'causality' which includes the (cause!)
> origination as well. 
> So (my very personal (odd?) paraphrasing): if there
> is a(ny) 
> 'situation', it may "anticipate" an "entailment".
> 
>   Now you may find this very heretic. However, what
> I learned about 
> RR, the man, - he was an open-minded researcher who
> would not 
> excommunicate someone for a "heretic" idea.
> Unfortunately we cannot 
> rely on his opinion to newly emerging questions,
> only on his written 
> texts, which were topically formulated for certain
> points to make.
> 
>   I hope to have a chance to study his unfinished
> last notes.
>   Without the bias 'how they relate to earlier
> published material'. I 
> hope to get a glimps of the 'not yet' published.
> 
>   A remark on 'heresy': If one studies a 'heavy'
> text intensely and 
> repeatedly, one draws up a mental image and it is
> very hard to 
> overcome it. (Sort of forming a belief system). 
> Similarly, a constant 
> discussion partner of someone in the process of
> formulating ideas may 
> not necessarily get, or remember the final versions
> - which are mostly 
> subject to a painful agony in the process of a final
> writing 
> formulation. It was only Zeuss, from who's head
> Athenae popped out in 
> total weaponry and Tesla, from who's head complete
> electrical 
> curcuit-designs popped out. (the latter maybe still
> after many 
> re-formulations? - no argument with Zeuss).
>   So please, try to clear your mind and reconsider
> some examples in 
> this sense which may not be totally identical to the
> position of the 
> steady longtime Rosen-students.
> 
>   I repeat my main point: causality is a model-based
> relation of both 
> 
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com