-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Günther Greindl on 11/16/2007 12:30 PM: >> I suspect the "orderability" only requires partial orders rather than >> total orders. > > yes, but relativity implies locality - that means all causes for A and > all effects of A would have to be in the past/future light cone. So for > the causality at point A you would have total ordering.
Well, my primary objection is that "A" is only post-observation description or pre-observation prescription determined to be a _unit_. My original point was that all cause is complex and all effect is complex. Perhaps I didn't say that clearly. This means that there really isn't an "A" as an (a single, autonomous) effect. "A" is a _situation_ that obtains. And that situation consists of many things. I.e. "A" is embedded inextricably in a context. Granted, one can hyper-focus some observation so as to artificially label some slice of the situation and call that slice the unit "A". But, that's an act of either description or prescription and is merely a _model_ of the situation (often an impoverished one at that). Hence, what you really have in the light cone is a gooey glob of effects and causes that are related by partial order. This will be true as long as the "locality" is not small enough to hit the quantum discretization boundary. Does that make more sense? - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest. -- Hermann Hesse -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHPgUbZeB+vOTnLkoRAsYxAJ0bekTJTJHVwsfhe79qEEfdxvWb7QCgpdQY 8O1fWyLa/GDzGr2F29a5UGQ= =jw1T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
