[FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

Wed Feb 10 14:33:41 EST 2021

So the presence and absence of spark Plugs screens off cart Starting from the Gas tank and the Battery charge.  To put in terms of ANOVA, there is no additivity of variance in the effects of G, B, and P upon S.  One could, of course, achieve additivity by partitioning the variance into the various interactions in G, B, and P’s effects upon (Pr S).  Or is the analogy between ANOVA and Currying completely without merit. 

This only demonstrates further that FRIWWMFTT.  

N

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

Nick, 

Somehow I don't relate to the sandwich case.  Is having ham and having eggs different from having ham and eggs.

Your second question may be related to the following:  if A and B are both causes of C then A and B are not independent given C.  Let C be "car starts", A be "gas in tank" and B be "battery charged".  If you know there's gas in the tank and you observe that the car starts then you infer whether the battery is charged.  There are numerous ways to object to this which are irrelevant.  "What if the spark  plugs are missing?"  Etc.  

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 11:50 AM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com> > wrote:

Thanks, Glen, 

You consistently give me thoughts to chew on.  Your introduction of "point of view' into the conversation is a "New Thought" for me, and I am grateful for it.  In particular, it makes apt the metaphor of screening off.  So, let it be the case that a third variable, C, also affects B.  In that case, one could not make predictions about  B to A without knowing about C.  Thus, C screens off A from B.  I think I get it.  

Nick   

Nick Thompson
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> > On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 12:00 PM
To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

I think I have useful things to say about it. But who knows for sure?

I regard this sort of screen as if *from* the present looking into the past. From the perspective of the 3rd node, can you *see* the 1st node? Or can you only see the 2nd node? (I think I alluded to this in my post about Barbour's "Janus Point".)

As to the meshed gears, as usual, it's useful to crack cause into multiple meanings like agency vs material, formal, and final. But you can also adopt a perspective. From the 2nd gear's perspective, the 1st gear is causing it to move. From the 1st gear's perspective, you are causing it to move. And from a multi-gear perspective, either you *or* the designer is causing the 2nd gear to move. Scoping, scoping, scoping, scoping.

On 2/10/21 9:06 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>  wrote:
> Hi, All,
> 
>  
> 
> If any of you had any spare brain time, I am interested in  the attached VERY SHORT <https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:a6e9c10b-06dc-4ea1-8ffa-d450df62489a> article:
> 
>  
> 
> I am struggling here with the idea of "screening off".  Does it mean more or less than the following:  Granted that, If I had ham, and I had eggs, I would have ham and eggs, having eggs screens off having ham from having ham and eggs?   Screening off seems a very odd metaphor.  Is it a term of art in logic?
> 
>  
> 
> Also, a general problem I have with causality:  My understanding of causality is that event A can cause event B  if and only if A is independently known from B (an event cannot cause itself) AND occurs prior to B  Now imagine  two perfectly meshed gears, such that motion in one is instantly conveyed to the other.  I turn gear A and gear B turns.  Has the motion in A /caused/ the turning of B or has my turning of A caused the motion of B?  With the gears, this may just seem like a fussy “in the limit” sort of question, but there seem to be other phenomena where it’s worth asking.  Does the discharge of potential along the ionized (?) path CAUSE the lightning?
> 
>  
> 
> I realize that the rest of you have spouses, dogs, cats, hobbies, and day jobs, but any off hand thoughts you have on these matters would be greatly appreciated.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>  un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> 
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210210/b698d3e5/attachment.html>