@Plinz are you using concepts of #Supervenience / #DownwardCausation in your work? They seem key to me.
-
-
Replying to @richarddorset
I found that many people think that supervenience and downward causation are 'real things'. They are relationships between different models.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
But the different models are not 'isomorphic', and don't they correspond in some way to 'real things'? Question : is there evidence for downward causation 'in reality'?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @richarddorset
The only real thing may be the evolution of the state vector of the universe. Notions like "mind" and "brain" are an attempt at local compression, they try to describe something like spirals in a Mandelbrot fractal. Are these spirals real? How are they related?pic.twitter.com/GUB704yQWC
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @richarddorset
Eg., the relationship between hardware and software is quite complicated. They are different abstractions for describing overlapping regions of the fractal. They are mapped via a sequence of compression models (statistical physics, electrics, logic, automata, languages, code).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @richarddorset
The fact that this chain of mental model holds enables our prediction that a change in software will lead to a particular pattern of changes in the physical world. But it is not a "real" thing: it is a relationship between models. The observables are always the same.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
The heat generated by the computer, the business function served by the computer, are two examples of a reality that are slightly orthogonal to these. The boundaries are different. In interesting cases, the different models shouldn't so clearly map onto each other.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @richarddorset
They don't. What happens to the software if it upsets the user so much that the user pours his coffee over the hardware? Edge cases are very hard to predict!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
You have changed the boundary of your stack of models, which is exactly my point. Previously the boundaries coincided, but now you have included an annoyed user with a cup of coffee. Is the annoyed user pouring her coffee an example of downward causation? It's causally messy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, but that is a problem of your model boundary, not of reality.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Well yes, but engineers model & build things without reference to UWF in Hilbert Space. Questions are: 1. Does downward causation exist 'in reality' (you say no, it's in models) 2. If not, is it still useful to include downward causation in models of e.g.cognition.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.