Demonstrating predictability in the presence of one's enemies would be a bad thing. Fortunately, we're all friends here.
--Doug On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:06 AM, glen e. p. ropella < [email protected]> wrote: > Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 09/25/2009 07:57 AM: > > But the question was genuine: what possible gain (in your opinion, of > > course) will come out of this? Where's the added value? What's the > benefit > > about attempting to talk about emergence in the context of unraveling a > > sweater? > > I don't think there is any value of us expressing our own opinions, > here. But I do think there is value in us trying to simulate what > _others_ might say. In fact, I think it would have been _very_ easy to > predict Douglas Roberts' response. ;-) > > I vacillate between thinking it's good to be easily simulable vs. bad to > be easily simulable. Those who value consistency would obviously _like_ > others to be able to simulate them. But those who value creativity > would probably not like to be easily simulable. So, I'd be interested > to know if others could simulate me to an extent which was validatable. > (Not validatable against my own perception of myself, of course, but > against others' "data" about me.) > > I think there's plenty of practical value to being able to simulate what > others would say in response to a given question, if for no other reason > than it would help us design better models that we could then sell to > executives in, say, pharmaceutical companies. [grin] > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > 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
