|
Steve Johnson wrote: 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".
This is very close to being a correct interpretation, as the
material world is generally assumed to refer to "the universe" (which
is where causality resides). But "that which is in the ambience" need
not be material. So, these aren't really the same thing. RR tended to refer to
the universe as the "self plus the ambience" if he is pinned down to be very
specific-- because there are plenty of aspects to the universe which are not
material, and entailment is one of them, just as complex organization (or,
indeed, any relation) or information (as in "semantics") is. So,
systems in the universe are "natural" systems, unless matter (material form) is
being specified. This is the very reason why the importance of these aspects has
gone unaddressed in science for so long.
Why is it so difficult to envision the concept that "causal
entailment" is entailment which underlies causality? Causality is how we refer
to "what happens in the universe". But Causality doesn't happen according to
random laws or rules that are inconsistent for each instance of causality.
It follows patterns, which allow us to trace the underlying reasons for the
patterns. The underlying reasons constitute "causal
entailment".
Causal entailment, then, can be said to embody the "Laws of Nature"
that my father spoke of. But as he pointed out; one of the
bedrock rules or laws of the universe apparently is that context impacts
all other laws. So, each system organization will have entailment
patterns which are not necessarily the same as other organizations.
(Organization specifies all relations and thereby generates a unique context.)
What is even more surprising is that the entailment patterns of a specific
organizational type will "hold" even when the material aspects are different.
Thus, it IS the situation here on Earth that we have living organisms
of myriad variety and yet we are able to recognize them all as living. This
is really the set of thoughts which Rosennean Complexity is built upon. These
are the patterns he saw. And, the reason we can make models which commute is
based on this fact as well-- that a pattern of entailment created by an
organizational type will be the same regardless of what the system is "made out
of". So a formal system (a model) with the same entailment patterns as a
real system will be able to "predict" accurately the behavior of that
real system.
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 1:22
AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Causality vs
Entailment
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
|