development: is dynamic process

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents concept
Weight: 0.63
, aspect
Weight: 0.60
, step
Weight: 0.60
, process
Weight: 0.60
Siblings acquisition
Weight: 0.69
, artificial intelligence
Weight: 0.64
, discovery
Weight: 0.62
, well
Weight: 0.60
, cell division
Weight: 0.60

Related properties

Property Similarity
is dynamic process 1.00
is dynamic 0.91
be important process for things 0.85
is multidimensional process 0.84
has physical part process 0.83
is continuous process 0.83
be integral part of process 0.81
be important process for living things 0.80
experience greater learning curves than automated process 0.80
be different in dynamic uncertain environment 0.79

Priors about this statement

Cues

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Joint Necessity Sufficiency Implication Entailment Contradiction Entropy

Evidence

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(process, experience greater learning curves than automated process)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(development, is dynamic process)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(process, be different in dynamic uncertain environment)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(development, is dynamic process)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(process, be different in dynamic uncertain environment)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(process, experience greater learning curves than automated process)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.19
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(process, experience greater learning curves than automated process)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(process, be different in dynamic uncertain environment)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cell division, be important process for living things)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(process, experience greater learning curves than automated process)
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(development, is dynamic process)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(process, be different in dynamic uncertain environment)
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(development, is dynamic process)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(cell division, be important process for living things)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(cell division, be important process for living things)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Salient(development, is dynamic process)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(development, is multidimensional process)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, has physical part process)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(development, is continuous process)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.04
Typical(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(development, has physical part process)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.04
Typical(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(development, is continuous process)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.55
Salient(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Salient(development, is continuous process)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(development, has physical part process)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(development, is continuous process)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.55
Salient(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Salient(development, has physical part process)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.55
Salient(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Salient(development, is multidimensional process)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(development, is multidimensional process)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.04
Typical(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(development, is multidimensional process)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
Salient(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, is dynamic process)

Typical implies Plausible

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(development, is dynamic process)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.11
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(process, be different in dynamic uncertain environment)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.09
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(process, experience greater learning curves than automated process)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.01
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.05
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(cell division, be important process for living things)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.11
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.04
Typical(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(process, be different in dynamic uncertain environment)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.11
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.04
Typical(development, is dynamic process)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(process, experience greater learning curves than automated process)