39 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Sort of. But let's get real.

It's a 10 l reservoir 😃 !

But yes, I see what you mean.

On 11/9/2025 at 2:13 PM, MigL said:

Maybe 'causality' is the wrong word to use...

This sequencing, or ordering, would need entropic consideration, as the ordered state always precedes, and is much less likely, than the many states of disorder ( entropy as the arrow of time )...

I was quite taken with this earlier line of thought you introduced. It reminded me of some statistical studies I engaged in when I was working more or less exclusively in the process control field.

Process control generally aims to reduce the standard deviation, and hence the variance, of some property of a product stream. Being familiar with constructing material and energy flow diagrams for processes, I began sketching out variance flow diagrams in an attempt to quantify where the variance went because it clearly didn't vanish: it dissipated in the conversion of electrical inputs to heat; instrument air signals to low pressure exhaust etc. It soon became apparent that these were diagrams of entropy flow. While it was possible to shunt variance around into various streams, it always grew in total, because total entropy always increased with time.

Is it just a coincidence that entropy increase and causality flow in the same direction? Is causality determinable in an isentropic process?

Anyway, your post prompted me to have a quick look at the entropy of electron capture decay. It improved my understanding of the weak interaction and the function of electron neutrinos, so thanks for that.

Edited November 12Nov 12 by sethoflagos
Redistribution of variance.

56 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

I was quite taken with this earlier line of thought you introduced. It reminded me of some statistical studies I engaged in when I was working more or less exclusively in the process control field.

Process control generally aims to reduce the standard deviation, and hence the variance, of some property of a product stream. Being familiar with constructing material and energy flow diagrams for processes, I began sketching out variance flow diagrams in an attempt to quantify where the variance went because it clearly didn't vanish: it dissipated in the conversion of electrical inputs to heat; instrument air signals to low pressure exhaust etc. It soon became apparent that these were diagrams of entropy flow. While it was possible to shunt variance around into various streams, it always grew in total, because total entropy always increased with time.

Is it just a coincidence that entropy increase and causality flow in the same direction? Is causality determinable in an isentropic process?

Anyway, your post prompted me to have a quick look at the entropy of electron capture decay. It improved my understanding of the weak interaction and the function of electron neutrinos, so thanks for that.

I'm glad this has stimulated some unexpected thinking and I look forward to learning the results in your next post.

Perhaps more to the point, if we managed to construct a near perfect z-transform for the universe, it could in principle generate the initial boundary conditions (values of 'fundamental constants'?) necessary to create some arbitrary future state (eg universe lifetime>>10¹⁰⁰ years, biology).

As it is just maths, and maths does not in principle require a universe to be valid, that perfect z-transform would have some sort of existence at t<=0...

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

I'm glad this has stimulated some unexpected thinking and I look forward to learning the results in your next post.

Simulpost. Apt since we're into simulations here.

43 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

I'm glad this has stimulated some unexpected thinking and I look forward to learning the results in your next post.

Simulpost. Apt since we're into simulations here.

😄

My encounter with feedforward concerned high quality hifi amps years ago.

Here is a more modern net paper on them.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269101733_TOWARDS_A_GENERALISATION_OF_ERROR_CORRECTION_AMPLIFIERS

On 11/11/2025 at 4:10 PM, dimreepr said:

The point of philosophy, especially in this context, is to ask and answer what is real.

Philosophy, not to mention that it is abstract, has never been able to do the things you are talking about..

On 11/11/2025 at 4:10 PM, dimreepr said:

It's like the same river that can't be crossed twice question, to which the answer is, the bridge hasn't moved and nor has the river...

This shows that you don't understand this saying at all.. the water molecules have moved, so it won't be the same river, but a different one, with different contents..

“Untangling Gordian knots” does not mean cutting them, unless it is a play on words. Someone could just as well knock over the chessboard and say, “I won this game of chess.”..

The Gordian knots remain tied.

22 hours ago, Sensei said:

Philosophy, not to mention that it is abstract, has never been able to do the things you are talking about..

What things do you think I'm talking about?

22 hours ago, Sensei said:

This shows that you don't understand this saying at all.. the water molecules have moved, so it won't be the same river, but a different one, with different contents..

This shows that you don't understand my answer; for instance, do you think you're the same person even though all of the atoms that make up you today, are different from the atoms you were born with?

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

This shows that you don't understand my answer; for instance, do you think you're the same person even though all of the atoms that make up you today, are different from the atoms you were born with?

Well I understood it as one of your better answers.

On 11/8/2025 at 6:21 AM, studiot said:

Philosophy deals with the notion of cause and effect, both identifiable with the latter following the former.

What I have never seen so would like to ask is

How does Philosophy address feedback and feedforward processes in relation to cause and effect ?

When I first read your post, I thought it was about science because of the "feedback and feedforward" terminology, but you asked about philosophy. I am not a trained philosopher, so there is a great deal that I do not know, and not being a science person, I was not sure what you were asking regarding feedback/feedforward.

Are you actually asking how philosophy addresses time and how some kinds of time displacement can affect logic and cause and effect? If so, I would say that there are philosophers who seem to think that physical reality is illusion, or not real, and therefore not always bound by the physical rules. Although I don't totally agree with that, I can see why some might think so. My thought is that physical reality is foundational and real, but I also see a layer of motion that physical reality evolves from, so the base foundation is actually motion and is also real. This reminds me of the mind's conscious/unconscious relationship and could explain the problems with logic.

I study consciousness and noted that the similarities between the rational mind vs the unconscious aspect of mind -- and the similarities between physical reality vs base motion are very comparable. Both physical reality and the rational mind evolve from forces (motion/emotion). A lot of people seem to think that this means that one or the other is not real, that it is illusion, but I don't think so. I think that both are just as real, and that physical reality and thought are interpretations of motion/emotion.

The conscious rational aspect of mind is much like physical reality in that it works with logic, cause and effect, works specifically within, uses digital thought, recognizes time, and is directed by us -- much like houses in physical reality are built by us. Or I could say that we can control it. The unconscious aspect of mind is nothing like that and is ruled by emotion. It is not rational, is not logical, works externally between things, is analogue, often changes and often ignores time; and therefore, ignores cause and effect. It is mostly emotion rather than thought, and is reactive rather than directed. We have little control over the unconscious and often do not even know that it reacted until we see the results -- as it is with instincts.

So I can see where cause and effect, or even logic, may not always be relevant in some levels of mind and some levels of reality.

On 11/9/2025 at 9:48 AM, studiot said:

But for instance I have't seen any biologist responsed about any form of biogenesis or the chicken and egg question.

When I read the "chicken and egg" thing, I was pretty sure that you were talking about philosophy. Consider that when we delve deeply into the unconscious, we find that the chicken/egg issue resolves itself because they are recognized by the unconscious as being the same -- time becomes irrelevant. The deeper levels of the unconscious categorizes things in sets, so the chicken is the egg and the egg is the chicken (as far as I can understand it). Blanco calls this bi-logic and explains this stating that in the deepest levels, if Mary is Jane's mother, then Jane is Mary's mother -- the relationship (mother) is relevant to this understanding, time is not. Maybe this is why emotion responds to bonding rather than logic, because without time, logic is unworkable.

To understand this idea better, you can look up Blanco's work in Wiki. It is a one page read that explains this concept much better than I can. Apparently, Matt Blanco used math to break down the unconscious into five levels, then very successfully applied those levels to the study of consciousness and patients in psychiatry/psychology. I have no idea how he did it as my math skills are almost mediocre, but I can understand the results of his work.

Does the motion, that physical reality evolves from, work much like the emotion in the unconscious aspect of mind, that the conscious rational mind evolves from? Which, if so, would make biogenesis a nonissue. If there is no time at that level, then cause and effect is a nonissue. Is this where Plato got the idea of forms? Was he actually talking about sets? I have no idea, but I know that Plato understood the unconscious and I know he was a genius, and way too far above my mental abilities. I should have started studying him 50 years ago, when I might have had some hope of understanding him.

You can learn more about Blanco's understandings here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Matte_Blanco

On 11/9/2025 at 3:53 PM, sethoflagos said:

Nature does do feedforward, but only in living systems afaik. A spooked gazelle may run for its life to avoid becoming dinner. A stranded octopus may 'sprint' over rocks to find a deeper pool. Or is that just an inborn reflex?

The inanimate parts of the universe seem content just to let stuff happen.

Or a plant that produces flowers and seed at the right time of year to produce offspring. Grass/weed that will flatten itself in order to protect its roots from too much sun/heat, or stretch/warp itself to get more sun?

A tree that grows too close to a fast moving river, where the river erodes some of the roots will actually grow extra branches on the land side to keep it's balance and prevent it from falling in the river. I don't see how anyone can call all these things inborn reflexes, but they clearly are survival instincts, and all survival instincts work through feeling/emotion and the unconscious. The unconscious can ignore cause and effect and logic. I am beginning to suspect that the 'motion' that exists in all reality is much like the unconscious in life.

Gee

7 hours ago, Gees said:

When I first read your post, I thought it was about science because of the "feedback and feedforward" terminology, but you asked about philosophy. I am not a trained philosopher, so there is a great deal that I do not know, and not being a science person, I was not sure what you were asking regarding feedback/feedforward.

Are you actually asking how philosophy addresses time and how some kinds of time displacement can affect logic and cause and effect? If so, I would say that there are philosophers who seem to think that physical reality is illusion, or not real, and therefore not always bound by the physical rules. Although I don't totally agree with that, I can see why some might think so. My thought is that physical reality is foundational and real, but I also see a layer of motion that physical reality evolves from, so the base foundation is actually motion and is also real. This reminds me of the mind's conscious/unconscious relationship and could explain the problems with logic.

I study consciousness and noted that the similarities between the rational mind vs the unconscious aspect of mind -- and the similarities between physical reality vs base motion are very comparable. Both physical reality and the rational mind evolve from forces (motion/emotion). A lot of people seem to think that this means that one or the other is not real, that it is illusion, but I don't think so. I think that both are just as real, and that physical reality and thought are interpretations of motion/emotion.

The conscious rational aspect of mind is much like physical reality in that it works with logic, cause and effect, works specifically within, uses digital thought, recognizes time, and is directed by us -- much like houses in physical reality are built by us. Or I could say that we can control it. The unconscious aspect of mind is nothing like that and is ruled by emotion. It is not rational, is not logical, works externally between things, is analogue, often changes and often ignores time; and therefore, ignores cause and effect. It is mostly emotion rather than thought, and is reactive rather than directed. We have little control over the unconscious and often do not even know that it reacted until we see the results -- as it is with instincts.

Gee

It seems to me the question is about probabilities and how it relates to the real world, correct me if I'm wrong @studiot, so it's both

It's like that cat in a box question, it's absurd to try and imagine a quantum reality that translates to our reality.

It's just a matter of time, is a misleading rabbit hole to follow...

9 hours ago, Gees said:

Or a plant that produces flowers and seed at the right time of year to produce offspring. Grass/weed that will flatten itself in order to protect its roots from too much sun/heat, or stretch/warp itself to get more sun?

A tree that grows too close to a fast moving river, where the river erodes some of the roots will actually grow extra branches on the land side to keep it's balance and prevent it from falling in the river. I don't see how anyone can call all these things inborn reflexes, but they clearly are survival instincts, and all survival instincts work through feeling/emotion and the unconscious.

No. The phenomena you describe are examples of homeostatic and closely allied responses which are classic feedback loops. They respond to the effects of external influences in such a way as to restore equilibrium. Consciousness is not a prerequisite for this much less such anthropomorphic concepts as feelings and emotions (in plants??!).

My post was concerned with feedforward control which is much more of a challenge for evolution to implement.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It seems to me the question is about probabilities and how it relates to the real world, correct me if I'm wrong @studiot, so it's both

It's like that cat in a box question, it's absurd to try and imagine a quantum reality that translates to our reality.

I'm pleased some find this thread interesting to discuss.

A nice change from AI or non-relativity.

No I didn't envisage probability being involved, but that is not to say it isn't.

If you see a connection please offer it up for discussion.

My input is not meant to be prescriptive in any way.

Having said that and thinking further about feed forward, we have the possibility of another mechanism.

Time delay.

It is possible for the error correcting signal to reach the output at the same time at the main process by delaying one or the other appropriately.

The effect fro instance on transmission line loudspeakers is dramatic whrn you get that just right.

Similarly I remember playing with springline (and later digital) reverb units to explore the audio effects available.

Edited November 21Nov 21 by studiot

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Having said that and thinking further about feed forward, we have the possibility of another mechanism.

Time delay.

It is possible for the error correcting signal to reach the output at the same time at the main process by delaying one or the other appropriately.

That's sort of the idea of noise cancellation headphones isn't it? Inverting the output of a microphone sampling ambient noise is effectively adding a half-wave time delay to the input (in order to neutralise it through destructive interference).

It's the most basic form of feedforward control, though personally, I would tend to call it open-loop control. Many use the terms interchangeably.

42 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

That's sort of the idea of noise cancellation headphones isn't it? Inverting the output of a microphone sampling ambient noise is effectively adding a half-wave time delay to the input (in order to neutralise it through destructive interference).

It's the most basic form of feedforward control, though personally, I would tend to call it open-loop control. Many use the terms interchangeably.

Yes it can be very crude.

But it also suggests a deeper philosophical point.

The practical fact thst you can have two (or more) timers delayed by a controllable amount so that they can be combined with another suggests a background time always ticking away regardless.

I'm not calling this absolute time since it has no defined or unique origin.

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It seems to me the question is about probabilities and how it relates to the real world, correct me if I'm wrong @studiot, so it's both

It's like that cat in a box question, it's absurd to try and imagine a quantum reality that translates to our reality.

dimreepr;

What are you talking about? And what do you think that someone is imagining?

I didn't know what a "quantum reality" is, so I looked it up, but still don't understand your association.

Gee

11 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

No. The phenomena you describe are examples of homeostatic and closely allied responses which are classic feedback loops. They respond to the effects of external influences in such a way as to restore equilibrium.

sethoflagos;

Equilibrium? Every time I read the word "homeostatic" it refers to the body or some other internal balancing system. Yet you seem to understand that it relates to "external influences". What are you trying to say? It sounds like you are agreeing with me, but you said, "No." Why is that?

11 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Consciousness is not a prerequisite for this much less such anthropomorphic concepts as feelings and emotions (in plants??!).

The only thing "anthropomorphic" is the language and the arrogance of mankind in the assumption that feelings and emotions belong solely to humans, and maybe animals, if they have a brain. You will have to forgive me for using human language, as I don't know any other way to describe these ideas.

Instead of thinking of emotion/feeling as what we interpret them to be, i.e., love, hate, envy, joy, etc., consider what emotion and feelings actually are. They are forces that cause a want, much like a magnet they attract (love, joy, happiness) and/or repel (fear, anger, pain). All emotion and feelings either pull things together or push them apart. Then consider that all survival instincts, ALL of them, are activated by emotion/feeling as a result of attraction or repulsion. And all life, ALL of it, has survival instincts (this includes plants). This means that all life has access to the unconscious aspect of mind, so the unconscious is not in your head, it is not in your brain, logically it has to be part of reality. If it were not part of reality, then how would ecosystems exist?

11 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

My post was concerned with feedforward control which is much more of a challenge for evolution to implement.

I would like to suggest that without what we call the unconscious (feeling/emotion) there would be no evolution.

Gee

10 hours ago, studiot said:

Having said that and thinking further about feed forward, we have the possibility of another mechanism.

Time delay.

It is possible for the error correcting signal to reach the output at the same time at the main process by delaying one or the other appropriately.

The effect fro instance on transmission line loudspeakers is dramatic whrn you get that just right.

Similarly I remember playing with springline (and later digital) reverb units to explore the audio effects available.

Studiot;

Again it looks like you are talking more about science than philosophy. My interpretation is that philosophy tries to discover what is real and true, but science tries to do something with the information--manipulate it. Yes?

Gee

19 hours ago, studiot said:

Having said that and thinking further about feed forward, we have the possibility of another mechanism.

Time delay.

That's kinda my first post, the traffic jam scenario. I think time delay is a uniquely human/animal trait, as in the processing of reality via external inputs.

20 hours ago, studiot said:

The effect fro instance on transmission line loudspeakers is dramatic whrn you get that just right.

I often wondered if you'd get an audible feedback, in an anechoic chamber and no initial sound input?

9 hours ago, Gees said:

dimreepr;

What are you talking about? And what do you think that someone is imagining?

I didn't know what a "quantum reality" is, so I looked it up, but still don't understand your association.

Gee

It may not be appropriate in this discussion, as I'm still unsure of @studiot question.

But I get the impression that it's basically mathematical, as in Zenos paradox perhaps.

The association with quantum reality is more of a metaphor. 

Edited November 22Nov 22 by dimreepr

9 hours ago, Gees said:

sethoflagos;

Equilibrium? Every time I read the word "homeostatic" it refers to the body or some other internal balancing system. Yet you seem to understand that it relates to "external influences". What are you trying to say? It sounds like you are agreeing with me, but you said, "No." Why is that?

Because when a bimetallic strip bends or straightens in response to changes in ambient temperature, I'm inclined to accept differential expansion of the two metals as a better explanation than mood swings.

Granted, biological dynamic behaviour tends to be a bit more complicated than this example, but the same principles apply. Macroscopic effects arise though physical and chemical interactions at the atomic level plus a limited subset of emergent properties that arise at certain higher levels of complexity.

Occam's razor demands that emergent properties are only valid propositions in a) systems that are sufficiently complex to give rise to them, and b) where they cannot be readily described in terms of more fundamental interactions.

An emergent property like 'joy' (however you care to define it) would I believe require as a bare minimum a nervous system within which to manifest itself. So when you imply that e.g. cyanobacteria are only able to evolve if they can experience joy in doing so, I'm inclined to disagree.

Bimetallic strips do not experience mood swings.

11 hours ago, Gees said:

Studiot;

Again it looks like you are talking more about science than philosophy. My interpretation is that philosophy tries to discover what is real and true, but science tries to do something with the information--manipulate it. Yes?

Gee

This is where science and philosophy diverge; politics evolved into ethics, and then we're asked, whom to kill for the best?