4 ms·
That's what I am arguing. :) But your comparison is unfair. It's not about weather prediction, I have no comments about that. But can't we simulate it? Yes we
by innguest 12y ago
That's what I am arguing. :)
But your comparison is unfair. It's not about weather prediction, I have no comments about that. But can't we simulate it? Yes we can, I play GTA, sometimes it's raining and my car skids more. That's weather simulation. Where's the economic simulation where I make interest rates negative and ...(fill in the blanks - who knows?)... that's why a simulator would really come in handy.
The difference between physics and economics is physics can use its formulae to simulate what it claims to explain, while economics can't. That makes me think those two sets of formulae are not of the same breed.
- agumonkey 12y agoGTA is a real time crippled approximation of physics, far from a simulation. Maybe economics have no 'one true' model from which equations can be derived, but even if there were such equations, the complexity wouldn't be manageable unless you reduce the precision to the point it's unreliable for real world usage.
- innguest 12y ago> GTA is a real time crippled approximation of physics, far from a simulation. Far? Cars skid in the water. They have different weights. The engine being on the front or on the back makes a difference in how the car drives. They have different acceleration speeds, different traction, and so on. It's pretty good, so I wouldn't call it "crippled". However, economics can't even make a simulator as good as GTA is for physics. That is pathetic and a testament to its quackery.