4 ms·

Such simulations don't assume determinism. A complex dynamic system will have evolutions that follow a probability distribution. The simulation should approxim

by sago 10y ago

Such simulations don't assume determinism. A complex dynamic system will have evolutions that follow a probability distribution. The simulation should approximate the p.d., and that is useful information. We do this with weather, market forecasting, and physical modelling.

coldtea 10y ago
>Such simulations don't assume determinism. Chaotic systems (as in chaos theory) don't make predictions either, whatever the probability distribution. Too many factors and butterflies in Beijing. >We do this with weather, market forecasting, and physical modelling Don't know about physical modelling, but in weather and market forecasting we do it with dire results.
- sago 10y ago
  Unfortunately you're wrong on both counts. The butterfly-in-Beijing metaphor is normally a good sign of someone who misunderstood the dynamics of complex systems. IIRC there's a lecture series from Santa Fe on intro to complex dynamics that might help. And 'dire results': the tyranny of the perfect! We get very good results from both, compared to the intrinsic information of the system. Again you're thinking about single results rather than probability distributions. It's a hard habit to crack, again, an intro to the field would help.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >The butterfly-in-Beijing metaphor is normally a good sign of someone who misunderstood the dynamics of complex systems. IIRC there's a lecture series from Santa Fe on intro to complex dynamics that might help. I didn't speak of "complex systems" (heck, even a three-body gravity system is complex), I spoke of chaotic systems. >And 'dire results': the tyranny of the perfect! We get very good results from both, compared to the intrinsic information of the system. Again you're thinking about single results rather than probability distributions. No, I'm thinking about the inability to e.g. make any weather forecast for more than 7-10 days at most. >It's a hard habit to crack, again, an intro to the field would help. Again with the condescending study suggestions. It's a bit rich from someone who asks for a pie in the sky "social oracle".
    - sago 10y ago
      > Again with the condescending study suggestions. I'm sorry it came over that way. But there should be nothing condescending about pointing out that you are misunderstanding the field. Knowledge and science are a real thing, they don't exist to inconvenience you. Complex systems (including chaos theory) is a fascinating area of math, for which there are a lot of learning resources online. It is not an insult to encourage you to go down the rabbit hole and move beyond the superficial (and wrong) stereotypes. > It's a bit rich from someone who asks for a pie in the sky "social oracle". Different person. Check the GP. Also probably straw-man, but you'd have to ask the GP.

by sago 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago

>Such simulations don't assume determinism. Chaotic systems (as in chaos theory) don't make predictions either, whatever the probability distribution. Too many factors and butterflies in Beijing. >We do this with weather, market forecasting, and physical modelling Don't know about physical modelling, but in weather and market forecasting we do it with dire results.

sago 10y ago
Unfortunately you're wrong on both counts. The butterfly-in-Beijing metaphor is normally a good sign of someone who misunderstood the dynamics of complex systems. IIRC there's a lecture series from Santa Fe on intro to complex dynamics that might help. And 'dire results': the tyranny of the perfect! We get very good results from both, compared to the intrinsic information of the system. Again you're thinking about single results rather than probability distributions. It's a hard habit to crack, again, an intro to the field would help.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >The butterfly-in-Beijing metaphor is normally a good sign of someone who misunderstood the dynamics of complex systems. IIRC there's a lecture series from Santa Fe on intro to complex dynamics that might help. I didn't speak of "complex systems" (heck, even a three-body gravity system is complex), I spoke of chaotic systems. >And 'dire results': the tyranny of the perfect! We get very good results from both, compared to the intrinsic information of the system. Again you're thinking about single results rather than probability distributions. No, I'm thinking about the inability to e.g. make any weather forecast for more than 7-10 days at most. >It's a hard habit to crack, again, an intro to the field would help. Again with the condescending study suggestions. It's a bit rich from someone who asks for a pie in the sky "social oracle".
  - sago 10y ago
    > Again with the condescending study suggestions. I'm sorry it came over that way. But there should be nothing condescending about pointing out that you are misunderstanding the field. Knowledge and science are a real thing, they don't exist to inconvenience you. Complex systems (including chaos theory) is a fascinating area of math, for which there are a lot of learning resources online. It is not an insult to encourage you to go down the rabbit hole and move beyond the superficial (and wrong) stereotypes. > It's a bit rich from someone who asks for a pie in the sky "social oracle". Different person. Check the GP. Also probably straw-man, but you'd have to ask the GP.