Hypergendered Logic Source
Hypergendered Logic — Page 93
10. If a law says a trait is lost on regression and regression occurs, the loss is a causal deduction; HGL alone does not provide that regression law. 160. Twenty strong causal inferences that are not deductions 1. Higher IH depth plausibly increases the number of provenance distinctions a phenotype map can exploit. 2. More distinguishable sources plausibly increase possible interaction patterns. 3. High stages may therefore be harder to predict exactly without a full causal map. 4. Some high-stage novelties may be microscopic rather than visible; this concerns individual novelties, not the total stage realization, which later canon requires to include at least some macroscopic anatomical and outwardly apparent stage-governed expression. 5. Some may be physiological rather than anatomical. 6. Some may alter timing rather than endpoint form. 7. Some may improve robustness rather than magnitude. 8. Some may suppress an earlier optional pathway. 9. Some may enable a previously latent pathway. 10. Some may require ordinary sexual maturity before becoming obvious. 11. Two high-stage individuals may differ due to history/environment. 12. Two stages may converge on similar visible phenotypes through different causal histories. 13. A low-stage individual can be more mature than a high-stage individual. 14. A high-stage individual can remain visually familiar while internally novel. 15. Phenotype novelty may become increasingly non-intuitive prospectively. 16. Once the inheritance graph is known, the same novelty may become retrospectively intelligible. 17. Stage-specific diagnostic markers might exist even when gross anatomy is similar. 18. Scientists would likely need provenance-aware classification rather than appearance alone. 19. Long plateaus could reveal stage-specific maturation effects missed in rapid-progressing subjects. 20. Archwomanhood/Archmanhood research would likely separate order, time-since-stage-acquisition, maturity, and causal source. 161. Countermodel: why does not imply 𝑆 𝐼𝐻𝑆 ( ) Model A: is true because independently generated; no inheritance edge to exists. 𝑆 𝑆 Then 𝑆= 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒, 𝐼𝐻𝑆 ( ) = 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑒. Therefore . 𝑆 ⊭ 𝐼𝐻𝑆 ( ) 162. Countermodel: why does not imply ¬𝐼𝐻𝑆 ( ) ¬𝑆 Use the same model: is independently true and not inherited. Then 𝑆 ¬𝐼𝐻𝑆 ( ) = 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒 while ¬𝑆= 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑒. Hence noninheritance is not nonexistence. 163. Countermodel: why does not entail from 𝐼𝐻𝑆 ( ) 𝐼𝐻𝑇 ( ) 𝑆⇒𝑇 Let be true, let , and let the model record no inheritance edge whose source is . Projection 𝐼𝐻𝑆 ( ) 𝑆⇒𝑇 𝑇 gives , so is true, but is false. Therefore inheritance provenance is not closed upward under logical 𝑆 𝑇 𝐼𝐻𝑇 ( ) consequence.
Source Canon: Verbatim mathematical and modal logic. Interactive navigation and operator lookups available at /#hgl-part:93.