[FRIAM] The epiphenomenality relation

[⛧ glen]

You can use whatever arbitrary words you'd like. Purposefully designed systems have bugs (i.e. epiphenomena, unintended, side-, additional, secondary, effects). Biological evolution does not. There is no bug-feature distinction there.


On November 28, 2021 9:40:23 PM PST, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
>The former clearly has side effects (epiphenomena). I argue the latter does not.
>
>Isnt that just the feature-bug distinction?  
>
> 
>
>n
>
>Nick Thompson
>
>ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
>https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of ? glen
>Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 11:14 PM
>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The epiphenomenality relation
>
> 
>
>This sounds like impredicativity, which can be a problem in parallel computation (resulting in deadlock or race). Unimplemented math has no problem with it, though. And I'm guessing that some of the higher order proof assistants find ways around it. A definitional loop seems distinct from iteration. So, no; I don't see a problem with iteration in digital computation. I simply don't think the intelligent design we do when programming is analogous to biological evolution. The former clearly has side effects (epiphenomena). I argue the latter does not.
>
-- 
glen ⛧