Lines of inquiry — A named line of the record’s own argument, so that a line can be set aside as a whole and what depends on it can be found. Retracting a line is a status change on its members, never a deletion (ADR-032).
Formal apparatus — results that hold whatever any substantive line concludes — gluing and contextuality, comparison of experiments and probes, identifiability, conservation, and thresholds for naming a unit; held as a second line by the general results other lines borrow, so that setting a substantive line aside does not retire them (ADR-040).
2 of 52 ARG documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARG-041 | From the effective-information bound and its ties to proportionality: a gain that depends on the intervention distribution is not a property of the system, the coarse-grainings that lose nothing are, and the coarsest of them is where the causes are | How the record went from THEORY-787, Hoel, Albantakis and Tononi’s causal emergence, to CLAIM-497, proportionality. Two results the record derived on 2026-10-29 are applied to the question of where a system’s causes are. One is the bound (THEORY-1167). The other is its ties, which are causal feature learning’s partitions (THEORY-1169). One further premise is interpretive: that the coarsest lossless description is the causal one. Proposed for that premise. | Proposed |
| ARG-050 | An intervention that disables a production pathway inside a declared boundary, or interrupts an outside controller, locates the producer of a maintained organization, because the pathway causes the capacities with a delay and can be intervened on surgically, so the fat-handedness of interventions on wholes does not reach the inference | Filed on reading the fat-handedness debate after Craver (Baumgartner & Gebharter 2016, Baumgartner & Casini 2017, Baumgartner, Casini & Krickel 2020). The doubt: since every intervention on a whole also acts on its parts along another path, intervention data cannot show what a whole consists in, so they might not show where maintenance is realized either. Answered: CLAIM-522’s interventions act on diachronic causes, not on a whole and its parts at a time, so the inference holds. Its weakest step is the boundary, which the inference takes as declared and no intervention supplies. | Active |