I don't really get how that assertion relates to Dave's overlooked Signal. But it does fit right into K&W's assertion that sometimes tossing in more noise can help tease more signal from prior noise.
I disagree, though, that Monte Carlo is *unbiased*. It's really just a composition of sources for variation. Those sources, their shape and [ex|in]clusion, and the method by which they're composed can bias the composition one way or another. It may be the least biased way of doing the composition. But it's not *un*biased. On 9/21/22 10:37, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Monte Carlo techniques aren't drawing upon some other source of knowledge. It's an unbiased way to do search. -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 9:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [FRIAM] Scientismists & functional noise An exchange of letters on the role of noise in collective intelligence Daniel Kahneman, David C Krakauer, Olivier Sibony, Cass Sunstein, David Wolpert https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/26339137221078593 Yet more evidence that Dave's not alone in his "conviction that there is overlooked Signal in everyone else's Noise".
-- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
