Back

@UlrikeHahn @uh @dcm@bookwyrm.social @MolemanPeter @NicoleCRust right, I don't get it either. If things like gravity count as context-independent constraints, in what sense would it be multiply realisable?
I also don't get the implied (?) relation between multiple realisability and vagueness. Isn't the point of *all* constraints that they constrain trajectories in state space, but don't determine only one such trajectory?
I think this is a case in which the book's terminological obscurity hinders understanding.

@dcm@social.sunet.se @uh @dcm@bookwyrm.social @MolemanPeter @NicoleCRust yes, to the vagueness point too.

Another thing I wondered about was the dichotomy between deviation from randomness (context independent constraints) and creating dependence (context dependent constraints).

It sounded in multiple places like that notion of dependence was probabilistic dependence, but in that case I wondered why context independent constraints wouldn’t generate probabilistic dependence as well?

@UlrikeHahn @uh @dcm@bookwyrm.social @MolemanPeter @NicoleCRust Hopefully the next chapter will make this clearer, for now I also don't get what that distinction is supposed to give us. Maybe it's just the trivial idea that some constraints are always there, and some may be there only in some contexts? Say, an antelope by itself is constrained by gravity, biology, etc, but in a population it becomes part of a predator-prey dynamic.