|
Hey Judith,
This is a fantastic
opportunity I think. What is "entailment" ?
This has to considered to be an integral
part of Robert's work: life and entailment.
Here are some of the thoughts that have occurred to me today.
Entailment in various contexts.
Some Entailment for
Builder/Establishers:
Final cause and goals?
What does or will it entail to build/establish
'this' ?
objects/processes or examples/events
(Robert's description of 'function' has been
hovering near these thoughts.)
Some Entailment for Detectives:
final goal?: deliver the perps and evidence
to custody and record.
'empathy' for perpetrator and crimes? (the
events)
the construction of models
investigations and the testing of
models
What a neat and powerful thing to ponder.
What is 'entailment'?
Judith, I felt compelled to add a
disclaimer.
I, as all, operate according to models
(implicit/explicit) and all that it entails.
David
P.S. What a vehicle you chose!
Any particular reason why this one?
Judith: For example, if you're standing in a big
puddle of gasoline and you light a match, dropping it into the puddle; there are
a set of entailments which are likely to cause extreme bodily injury or
death to you. However, if you are not standing IN the puddle of gasoline, but
are some distance away when you throw a lit match into it, you will experience a
different outcome. Both outcomes are always entailed, but different relations
will govern the interaction differently. Thus, the entailments of what we
observe happening in the universe (causality) are only a small subset of the
total entailments any system possesses.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 10:19
AM
Subject: What is "Entailment"?
John M. wrote:
'entailment' is still my old foe: I figure
'entail' is as forming the 'tail' of something, as in e.g. a consequence,
originational result, a needed initiator to the entailed. Then again in my
totally deterministic world (as far as the origination of things goes, not the
outcome (as in: future - and that is a special topic) negates anything NOT to
be entailed by origination.
So your question startled
me:
Where do the entailments come from, in
your respective views of evolution as a process of change?
as: entailing the change, or entailing
further changes? or even: who (what?) orchestrates the origination of the
process?
Entailment, as Robert Rosen used the term, doesn't just refer to
consequences or results (as in the sentence; "This tornado was caused/entailed
by...") but to all the potential consequences as well. All causality
(everything that happens) is entailed, in RR's view, but each system
has a whole collection of entailments which give it all the
potential of what COULD happen. Entailment refers to the
systemic "rules"-- as specified by the organization. We could make a
blanket statement and say, logically, that the organization of the
universe provides the set of entailments for all that is possible in the
universe. But individual system organization takes that potential
entailment and further sculpts it into a systemic entailment pattern (which is
expressed via causality and that's what we observe). We derive all of our
capability, as a species, from our entailments.
The impact of relations on causality are the reason why this
is true. No interaction can be described unless the relation by which the
interaction takes place is also described. The nature of that relation is
what specifies the entailments and that, in turn, determines the outcome
(causality). For example, if you're standing in a big puddle of gasoline
and you light a match, dropping it into the puddle; there are a set of
entailments which are likely to cause extreme bodily injury or death
to you. However, if you are not standing IN the puddle of gasoline, but are
some distance away when you throw a lit match into it, you will experience a
different outcome. Both outcomes are always entailed, but different relations
will govern the interaction differently. Thus, the entailments of what we
observe happening in the universe (causality) are only a small subset of the
total entailments any system possesses.
Relational interaction is what it's all about. Each interaction
is entailed and also entails-- it goes both ways. So, sodium and
chlorine have the entailment to form a molecular bond which, if it
happens, creates a compound; sodium chloride (salt). Salt has entirely
different properties from either sodium or chlorine, and that's because it has
different entailments. It's a different system, with different organization
than either of the elements from which it is created. The entailments of salt
are specified by that organization, and can only be understood via that set
of relations.
Does this help make it more comprehensible?
Judith
|