Ah, yes... very significant observation. And then how do you represent the systems of nature that are out of control and making up altogether new rules??? And how do you tell which is which?
If you're a real pest for detailed observation you find that our rule making is always an idealization of a conceptual level of organization in nature, not the real behavior of nature. It's tough, but we're stumbling over the error of representing our ways of predicting events as the mechanism by which nature performs events. Its-a just not-a da case! On 4/4/07, Marcus G. Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've always disliked the term ABM because the notion of intelligent or semi-intelligent actors is a distraction. Really ABM and rule based modeling are the same thing. Agents models can be of car engines, etc. Defined conservatively, say to understand human behavioral patterns in virtual worlds as opposed to human behaviors in general, it does seem that human vs. computer agents could be useful to mix and match for modeling. Say, to refine models of the range of individual behavioral patterns for the sake of make predictions of groups of people in yet to be designed virtual worlds.. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
