Skip to main content

Causality, Interaction, and Complexity

In a highly chaotic system, such as a high temperature gas, it is not ideal to use an atomic causal model. Instead, the effective causal model is to approximate to what extent each atom is interacting with every other atom. If we increase the temperature, then the number of atoms each atom interacts with should increase. As the temperature decreases, the number of atoms each atom interacts with should decrease.

If we were to randomly sample any atom, then on average, the atom should interact with a set of atoms of a certain size. Instead of thinking in terms of conditional probabilities and causal implications, we think in terms of sets of interconnected events. And this is because it is not computationally effective to analyze chaotic systems in a linear manner.

We can apply the same line of reasoning to sampling. If a system has a particular sampling rate, the inputs to the system are batched according to the sampling rate. In other words, the system cannot discern the ordering of events within a single sample, only between samples. The coupling of events (according to a sampling rate) is not done for computational efficiency, but it is a quality of the system.

It is strange that the predominant way to reason about causality is through atomic implications, such as p implies q. If we lower the temperature of a chaotic system such that each atom only interacts with one other element, have we not achieved the same thing, just without identity? Or if we increase the sampling rate of a system such that every event can be represented as an atomic sample, have we not achieved the same thing?

It seems causality is a consequence of two systems having different levels of entropy, or two systems having different sampling rates, because it is the difference in entropy or sampling rate that allows a pattern to be captured. If two systems have the same level of entropy, then neither can introspect the other because they look the same to each other. Likewise, if two systems have the same sampling rate, neither can decode the ordering of events within a sample. But if two systems have two different levels of entropy, then the one that has less entropy will look more ordered to the one that has more. Likewise, if two systems have two different sampling rates, then the one that has a higher sampling rate will look more ordered to the one that has a lower sampling rate. And a causal model of the events that are either interactively connected (due to entropy) or batched (due to sampling) can be constructed due to the difference.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Guitar improvisation from May 23, 2025

Context, reconciliation, and performance

I believe the software industry needs a word to differentiate the design of performant software from the inside (or bottom up) versus the outside (or top down). There is a heavy focus on algorithms and data structures in the software engineering world, which is great if you are designing performant software from the inside out (bottom up). But this will only be performant so long as there is one monolithic structure. As soon as there are competing components (or silos of functionality) that need to integrate together, the integration of the components often becomes a performance bottleneck. And this phenomenon is unavoidable because there is a limit to any human's working memory. Large problems are broken down to smaller problems so that they can be more easily grappled with. But the choice of how things are isolated often can incur a performance gain or loss that is just as significant in magnitude as choosing the right data structures and algorithms. And it is this way because da...

Time, partitioning, and synchronization

Any time measuring method inevitably runs into the issues of partitioning and synchronization. Partitioning deals with the issue of dividing a larger measure into smaller measures, and combining smaller measures into a larger measure. Synchronization deals with the problem of how a set of devices can self-correct if some of them are corrupted. The two are fundamentally related because often a choice in one determines a choice in the other. A measure is often defined by a set of synchronization points, such as the radioactive decay of an element or the frequency of a crystal oscillator. Synchronization points can often be defined as a measure of a change in space, such as the revolution of a planet around a star, or the change in energy state of an oscillating structure. Fundamental to both is the notion of change. A synchronization event can only be defined if there is a unit of space in which a change is observed. And either the magnitude of the space is large (such as the movement of...