But you agree that good prediction requires there to be structure or a process that provides the frame work in which a prediction can be made.
Minimally, I think we assume that what we see is a feature of what is there. Not all careful observational techniques reveal the same aspect. n From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 3:45 PM To: Grant Holland Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] entropy and uncertainty, REDUX That seems to me to be a different point--and one that Glen made about entropy a while ago. Scientific realists assume that what one sees is what there is, more or less, that structure in any dimension is presumed to be part of the universe, and that as observers we just see what is. (I know that's oversimplified, but that's the basic idea.) Predictability is different in that it's a matter of predicting something unknown when the prediction is made. -- Russ On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Grant Holland <[email protected]> wrote: t
============================================================ 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
