Well, sitting here in the peanut gallery, I think one of the virtues of
small, minimalist models is that they retain at least the option of
having some explanatory value.
I've seen too many instances where people naively try to capture as much
of reality as they percieve in their models, and
That's what an experimental design is for. Without a plan to rationally
vary parameters of the simulation, there is no hope to determine cause and
effect relationships. A good experimental design will define a series of
parameter sweep runs, the results of which can then be analyzed.
--Doug
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Richard Harris wrote:
I've seen models which could require hundreds of pages to fully describe
and required massive supercomputers to run. At the end of they day, if
you can't explain something, what's the point?
This is an excellent point and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Phil Henshaw wrote:
Na, I think even the most sophisticated math misses all the truly supple
shape of natural form, and it it's of huge signifiance in our
missunderstanding of natural phenomena.
I _strongly_ disagree with that. I talk to many
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Phil Henshaw wrote:
Well, the 'fault' of considering things from multiple points of view is
not contradiction, but confusing all those who don't!
Well, for us Discordians, it is certainly not a fault to confuse! In
fact, it is our holy obligation.
On 6/27/07, Glen E. P. Ropella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
p.s. My argument above does not make the word mathematician useless by
ascribing it to _everyone_ (as Bristol did when implying that every
thing is emergent). It is only ascribed to those who attempt to form
rigorous conceptions
Yes no.
The interesting part is you get different answers for the continuity of
'things' and the continuity of 'information'. Beginning end are clear
discontinuities for information, but because of the conservation laws
it's presumptive that change in physical things requires a continuous
