Joel and David, (01)
> Some people think that "implication" represents causality,
> but this is not necessarily true...
> in my point of view, causality is an ontological issue, and
> logic, in general, is ontologically neutral. (02)
I agree. (03)
> What other kinds of implementation of causality would you think
> also should be discussed? (04)
For example, you can simulate a physical system procedurally.
The program embodies a theory of causality for that system. (05)
But if you want to reason about causality, it's useful to extract
the assumptions that went into design and state them in logic. (06)
There are representations such as Petri nets, which can be viewed
as procedural or declarative. It's possible to view a Petri net
as a kind of flow chart that maps to a program. But it's also
possible to map them to *linear logic*. (07)
For more discussion, see my article on "Thinking and Reasoning
about Causality": (08)
For a discussion of Petri nets, go to Section 4. Procedures and
Process Types. Then go to Section 5. Reasoning about Causality.
That discusses several different ways of representing and reasoning
about the Yale Shooting Problem -- including Petri nets. (010)
An important advantage of Petri nets is the amount of software for
simulating them, analyzing them, and translating them to executable
code. Type "Petri nets" to your favorite search engine. (011)
The UML activity diagrams are watered-down versions of Petri nets.
But I prefer Carl Adam Petri's original version. (012)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (014)