3 ms·
I had to look up both terms. Granger causality seems like an intuitive concept and I am thinking the unique contribution of Granger is making it computationally
by jprete 3y ago
I had to look up both terms. Granger causality seems like an intuitive concept and I am thinking the unique contribution of Granger is making it computationally rigorous. Wikipedia, at least, doesn't give a rigorous definition of downward causation - nothing sufficient to distinguish it from lots of other similar concepts.
And...that abstract is very, very difficult to read. My most charitable explanation is that the author is carefully using terms with very precise meanings in scientific philosophy, but I have my doubts.
- 15457345234 3y ago[flagged]
- lmpdev 3y agoBoth terms are well defined within discourse in the philosophy of science (well defined in the analytic philosophy sense, not mathematical sense) Personally the resistance I see in a lot of scientists to participating in Philosophical discussions (or even using their terms) limits what could be very fertile ground for new work for both fields PS: whenever Philosophy is brought up, use Stanford's Encyclopedia rather than Wikipedia. A lot of niche concepts get misrepresented on the latter