Creating something implies causing it to exist. The identity not only has to do with what derives, but also the culpability of the creator.
If I create a high-frequency algorithm to trade financial assets in a flash, for example, and what derives is a “flash crash,” then I can, by implication, be held liable for causing something I did not intend. If I, in fact, profit from it, without intending it, then it appears I have caused the crash to profit from it.
What actually happened is the yield derived from the method, which I created.
Being the measurable object of “creator,” I am culpable despite what I may have intended. Due to a self-assembly (a random-attributive value) that naturally derives from the intention, despite the unintended exculpation of the risk, the un-intention is, nevertheless determined by what I actually intended.
This scenario of derivative identity is something that financial regulators have to deal with, especially now with the emergence of artificial intelligence. AI exists with randomly attributive values, having the emergent property of a self-assembly we see in nature and that we tend to perceive as being unintended, or tempting fate, which is a gamble (a probability). It is a random walk in the realm of Murphy’s Law (the measurable existence of entropy). It is an exercise in philosophical argumentation (but it is still the object of logical determinism).
Positivists recognize that “the argument” always reduces to the ontology (the determined object) of a natural existence. The “determination” is often discovered in the form of “the actual truth” when we are really demanding the existence of something else.
The recent example of the chocolate-nut spread demonstrates the creation of demand. Discounting the price resulted in riotous behavior. Logically, the person that created the spread caused the demand, which would not exist without creating it and, by the way, the jobs derived from the demand (which, by the way, depends on income).
Since demanding the product depends on income, regardless of who created it, we tend to say, then, that the discount caused the riotous behavior. The causal factor is, however, more dependent on income, and the capacity to command prices to the point of riotous behavior, which can be demonstrated by discounting the price to derive it.
A free market tempers the tendency to violent behavior by controlling prices ON DEMAND! That’s why defeating free-market mechanics is considered to be criminal behavior.
Maintaining a free market in priority aggresses a passive resistance, with the determining variable being the attributive value of existing on demand, which is determined by income — the currency (the financial means) to create the demand.
(See other articles, and images created by griffithlighton, on the concept of emergent property and the self-assembly.)