Mr Wilson's attempt to carry this mammoth undertaking out should be
applauded.
Hmm, how do you know you simulated and they didn't? If the output was
the same.... Why would successfully simulating understanding the economy
be any different from understanding? I don't understand why the sun goes
round the earth (?) every 24 hours but I use it to calculate days by.
Isn't the concept of 'understanding' one of those enlightenment terms
-like trust, faith and liberty, for example- now superseded by our
neo-liberal intuition of our own behaviourism?
A friend, a behaviourist political affairs scientist, would be
interested to assist in the development of your simulation, on condition
that, epistemologically, free will would be excluded from your
simulation. I, on the other hand, can only offer the contrary.
Edward Weick wrote:
>
> > "Douglas P. Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Since my post containing some tentative requirements analysis the
> >>silence has been deafening, with even Jay Hanson being mute on the
> >>subject.
> >
> >For my part, I found your post excellent, even inspiring. I marvel
> >at your level of enthusiasm.
> -Pete vincent
>
> I, on the other hand, do not. I have seen little evidence that you really
> know anything about the global economy that you hope to model. But then
> I've never regarded simulation as a substitute for understanding.
>
> Many years ago, I was in an Aboriginal community in the high Arctic. They
> held a dance. They danced and we, the outsiders, danced. They understood
> the dance. We did not. We simulated.
>
> Ed Weick
--
Mark Measday
__________________________________________________________________________
Josmarian SA [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167
French tel/fax: 0033.450.20.94.92
Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.363.88.00
'Tragedy inheres in all choice' : Isaiah Berlin
__________________________________________________________________________
