3 ms·

Having built models like this by programming before [1]. I think you can only "prove" things about the system you construct. Meaning, in reality it has (or coul

Having built models like this by programming before [1]. I think you can only "prove" things about the system you construct. Meaning, in reality it has (or could have) little to no basis. That being said, I think building models that reflect something we know can be valuable in providing insights - just ahouldnt be used as proof. Also 0.62 is not near average depending on simulation count / size. That's a pretty significant margin (>20%) above average. [1] https://austingwalters.com/modeling-and-building-robotic-sea-slug/ https://austingwalters.com/modeling-and-building-robotic-sea...

amelius 9y ago
> I think you can only "prove" things about the system you construct. Meaning, in reality it has (or could have) little to no basis. I think the author is aware of that and the point is more that people generally assume that talent is guaranteed to lead to success, and they have no basis to make that assumption either. This model demonstrates that the intuition is fallible.
vannevar 9y ago
I think you can only "prove" things about the system you construct. While this is true in a literal sense, often the question is not whether a model is definitively correct, it is whether a simpler model is sufficient to explain real-world phenomena where more complex models have been previously hypothesized. In those cases, we should generally prefer the simpler explanation, even if neither is yet proven in a formal sense.