ONT Re: Inquiry Into Models

[Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>]

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

Don Mikulecky wrote (DM):
Sungchul Ji wrote (SJ):
Jon Awbrey wrote (JA):

DM: It depends on your definition of causality.
    We use Rosen's interpretation of Aristotle's
    four becauses as our handle on information.
    Then we have to answer yes if the question
    is a "why" question.

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

Don,

I am again behind in my homework on this.
I had collected a batch of books on the
Aristotelian revival in systems theory,
but that was before we moved last year
and I still can't find the box therein.

But I do have my immortal be-Loebed editions near at hand.
Do you know of specific loci in Aristotle where I could
delve into his treatment of the "four becauses", as you
folks understand them, without a long and winding search?

Thanks In Prospecting,

Jon Awbrey

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

SJ: Dear Howard, I have been enjoying and learning a lot from your passionate
    dialogue with Jon these several weeks, and I hope you will continue.

SJ: For now, I have a question for you.  What is the essential difference,
    if any, between the Hertz's and Rosen's theories of modeling?  If they
    are different in some essential ways, what was the influence, if any,
    of Hertz's theory on Rosen's?

JA: Sorry to break in -- I am still behind in my homework on Rosen, so I promise that
    I will quickly retire to the peanut gallery with respect to that side of the issue --
    but there is a generic component of this question that I have worried about since
    I first woke up one fine or fuzzy day in one of my old phil or phys or psy classes
    and started to think seriously about causality, and since I have already tried to
    air my worries about this several times in this forum already, I feel entitled to
    keep on pestering folks about it until I arrive at a measure of satisfaction.

JA: Let me express it, this time around, in the form of a very old question:

JA: "Does not the effect imply its causes?"

JS: My naive answer would be: 

JS: If Y is the effect of X, then one can say that X causes Y,
    according to the common usages of terms, 'effect' and 'cause'
    in English language.

JS: Apparently there are many theories about "cause",
    "causation", or "causality", including regularity
    (or nomological) analysis, counterfactual analysis,
    manipulation analysis, and the probabilistic analysis.
    Probably all of these and more apply to the meaning
    of "causal entailment" that Rosen's modeling diagram
    refers to, but the regularity theory of causation may
    cover most of what Rosen meant by causality.

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤