[FRIAM] The epiphenomenality relation
Frank Wimberly
wimberly3 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 30 15:31:51 EST 2021
Yes. For details see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021, 1:20 PM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
> I assume what you mean is that one variable's *variation* is predictable
> from another variable's *variation*. That's subtly different from more
> substantial relations like direct or indirect proportionality, scaling,
> etc. To say that, e.g., variable V1 is always large when variable V2 is
> large is different from saying ν(V1) ≈ ν(V2). And ν() is just one of any
> arbitrary derivations we might choose.
>
> But, given our discussion of iteration (and the requirement of a delay
> between them), there's no need to assume that one variable is the *cause*
> of another variable, only [cor]related to (perhaps predictive of) that
> other variable. This allows for a common (latent) generator that isn't
> adequately represented in *any* of the variables ... which risks triggering
> your anti-inside rhetoric, I know.
>
>
> On 11/30/21 12:04 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> > Ok. So one way we could say that a variable was a primary cause of
> another is to say that it accounts for a substantial proportion of that
> variable’s variance, eh? We could agree that this is, for our purposes,
> the meaning of the word “primary.”
> >
> >
> >
> > There are, of course, an infinite number of ways in which a causal
> variable can become salient, right?
> >
> >
> >
> > n
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick Thompson
> >
> > ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto: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:* Monday, November 29, 2021 2:33 PM
> > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The epiphenomenality relation
> >
> >
> >
> > R squared tells you the percentage of the variance of a variable
> predictable by another.
> >
> > ---
> > Frank C. Wimberly
> > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> > Santa Fe, NM 87505
> >
> > 505 670-9918
> > Santa Fe, NM
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021, 12:23 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:
> thompnickson2 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I agree. I use the distinction (artificial vs natural) as a
> rhetorical crutch. What we *should* do, what I've asked Nick to do, is talk
> about how we *measure* outcomes, how they *scale*. If we run something like
> a principal component analysis on all the outcomes and let the data tell us
> which parts are primary and which parts secondary, then we don't need the
> artifical vs natural distinction (or the epi- vs phenomena distinction) at
> all. This outcome's salience is 0.00001, that outcome's salience is 10000.0.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is the kind of work that Frank has done. We will hear from him
> momentarily, I assume. As I understand it, such work can rank the efficacy
> of a cause for each of its effects. But it does not tell you to care only
> about the most effected effects. That is something you are doing. That’s
> your frame. My frame, as a development/evolutionist blah blah tells me to
> privilege effects that feed back on causes because these are the only kinds
> of effects that in time can shape the development of a biological of
> technological artifact. So loopy effects are “primary” to me. Perhaps I
> should use your word “salient”, in this case. Yes, I think that would be
> better.
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:
> friam-bounces at redfish.com>> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
> > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 11:19 AM
> > To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The epiphenomenality relation
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree. I use the distinction (artificial vs natural) as a
> rhetorical crutch. What we *should* do, what I've asked Nick to do, is talk
> about how we *measure* outcomes, how they *scale*. If we run something like
> a principal component analysis on all the outcomes and let the data tell us
> which parts are primary and which parts secondary, then we don't need the
> artifical vs natural distinction (or the epi- vs phenomena distinction) at
> all. This outcome's salience is 0.00001, that outcome's salience is 10000.0.
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course, if you change the measure, you get a different
> distribution. But if we don't talk, at all, about the measure(s) being used
> for the classification, then we're just talking nonsense.
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't like the following words. But the distinction between
> [un]supervised learning is similar. Except there, I tend to argue that
> there is no such thing as unsupervised learning. The very choice of any
> family of models biases the eventual model you select.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/29/21 9:10 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not clear on where/why one draws the line between artificial
> and natural. Artificial things have resulted from natural processes.
> These higher-order and relatively sharp fitness landscapes have mesas we
> call features. They usually don't involve people dying or failing to
> reproduce, but they do involve organized behavior by humans stopping, e.g.
> companies that go bankrupt. A continuous integration system running
> regression tests seems to have some properties of selection.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > > From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:
> friam-bounces at redfish.com>> On Behalf Of ? glen
> >
> > > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 6:14 AM
> >
> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
> >
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The epiphenomenality relation
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Right. Agnostic discovery of the artifacts resulting from an
> artificial machine comes much closer to what happens in natural systems,
> yes. Those artifacts would only be considered secondary or side-effects IF
> the exploration were NOT agnostic, motivated. You can only separate the
> artifacts into primary vs secondary IF you had a purpose in the assembly.
> No purpose, no distinction of primary vs secondary.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > But what you can do is measure the impact of all the resulting
> artifacts, on some scale, and order them that way, a distribution of
> primacy. Outcome O1 might be Y times more impactful, downstream than
> outcome O2. If THAT were what we meant by "secondary" effect, then it would
> be less laden with intention.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > But that's not what Nick seems to be doing. By insisting that some
> effects are, by definition, secondary and others primary, he's asserting an
> intention/purpose to the assembly.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On November 28, 2021 9:40:42 PM PST, Marcus Daniels <
> marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
> >
> > >> An ab initio simulation of a biochemical system would have a
> foundation of some human-engineered code and the atomic model simulated
> might have some simplifying assumptions. The low energy configurations
> and dynamics are discovered, not engineered. Yet it is all reproducible on
> a digital computer with precise causality and in some cases has shown
> fidelity with physical experiments.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>> On Nov 28, 2021, at 9:14 PM, ⛧ glen <gepropella at gmail.com
> <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>> 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.
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>> On November 28, 2021 5:40:31 PM PST, Marcus Daniels <
> marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
> >
> > >>>> Glen had said something a while ago implying that (that trivial
> meaning for) loops were somehow more challenging for digital computers.
> I didn’t get it.
> >
> > >>>>
> >
>
> --
> "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
> ☤>$ uǝlƃ
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20211130/927213ed/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list