Re: Causality vs Entailment - typo correction

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Correction of typo in my post below:
  "And an accretion of behaviors does generically entail a particular
accretion of causes."
Should be:
  "And an accretion of behaviors does *not* generically entail a particular
accretion of causes."

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Tim
> Gwinn
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 10:29 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Causality vs Entailment
>
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> I think one general point about mimesis Rosen makes is that one cannot
> reliably argue backwards from behavior (effects) to causes.[EL p. 123] The
> former does not entail the latter. And an accretion of behaviors does
> generically entail a particular accretion of causes. Analytic
> models are not
> generically  the inverse of synthetic models. Thus to create
> something which
> mimics the behavior of some original system does not entail that the mimic
> therefore has the same underlying causal entailment organization - it's
> causal basis - as the original system. So mimetic approaches will
> generically result in a lack of synonymy of entailment structures between
> the two systems.
>
> With respect to simulations, there is again the problem that that
> there is a
> lack of synonymy of entailment structures between the original
> system and a
> simulation of it. In a simulation, all the entailment structures are
> collapsed into material cause (i.e., software program) to a
> simulator (i.e.,
> hardware). Additionally, the simulator does not decode into
> anything in the
> original system: it is entirely extraneous to the original system yet
> entirely integral on the simulation side.
>
> In both cases, I feel the term 'entailment' is used consistent
> with the way
> he uses the term elsewhere.
>
> Regards,
> Tim