Excellent! So, your *scalar* is confidence in your estimates of any given
distribution. I try to describe it in [†] below. But that's a tangent.
What I can't yet reconstruct, credibly, in my own words, is the faith in
*convergence*. What if sequential calculations of an average do NOT converge?
Does this mean there are 2 stuffs, some that converge and some that don't? ...
some distributions are stationary and some are not? Or would you assert that
reality (and/or truth, given Peirce's distinction) is always and everywhere
stationary and all (competent/accurate/precise) estimates will always converge?
[†] You can be a little confident (0.01%) or a lot confident (99.9%). I don't
much care if you close the set and allow 0 and 1, confidence ∈ [0,1]. I think I
have ways to close the set. But it doesn't matter. If we keep it open and agree
that 100% confidence is illusory, then your scalar is confidence ∈ (0,1). Now
that we have a scale of some kind, we can *construct* a typology of
experiences. E.g. we can categorize things like deja vu or a bear in the woods
as accumulations of confidence with different organizations. E.g. a composite
experience with ((e1⨂e2⨂e3)⨂e4)⨂e5, where each of ei experiences has some
confidence associated with it. Obviously, ⨂ is not multiplication or addition,
but some other composer function. The whole composite experience would then
have some aggregate confidence.
On December 6, 2019 8:22:29 PM PST, [email protected] wrote:
Elegant, Glen, and you caused me truly to wonder: Is the population
mean, mu, of statistics fame, of a different substance than the
individual measurements, the bar x's that are stabs at it? But I think
the answer is no. It is just one among the others, a citizen king
amongst those bar-x's, the one on which the others will converge in a
normally distributed world. I guess that makes me a frequentist,
right?
And it's not strictly true that Mu is beyond my reach. I may have
already reached it with the sample I now hold in my hand. I just will
never be sure that I have reached it.
Could you, Dave, and I perhaps all agree that all ==>certainty<== is
illusory?
I don't think that's going to assuage you.
I am going to have to think more.
Ugh! I hate when that happens.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
