[FRIAM] Potential Vorticity and the Dynamic Tropopause

[glen]

Right. But that's a reduction to the infinite past or causa prima fallacy. It's perfectly fine to confine the universe of discourse to "recent past" or "nearby" and talk about proximal causes. Even though the physical system is some god-like ultimate cause, it's not merely convenient but efficient and more effective to talk about downward cause. We even have clearly defined mathematical methods for decoupling hierarchies of scale.

Arguing about the difference between a convenient fiction and Ultimate Reality is the domain of monks and priests.

On 5/16/24 10:02, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> The bias is emergent from the physical system.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 9:52 AM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Potential Vorticity and the Dynamic Tropopause
> 
> How about "downward biasing"? Is that less ridicul[ous|e-deserving]? If I'm a high order Markov process and my historicity heavily biases me toward a subspace of behaviors, isn't that reasonable labeled "downward causation"?
> 
> On 5/16/24 08:32, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> I'd like to take a moment to ridicule the notion of downward causality as I'm reading this.  😊


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ