Sorry. I've abused the word coherent as a joke. I probably shouldn't be so flippant. The defn of coherence they use does depend on an ontology. But (I think) they use it as an immediate proxy for the real objects. So, their defn of coherence wouldn't change. My focus isn't so much on whether their calculation actually works as intended. Just that it is a more formal concept than Nick's "objects that interact more with themselves than others".
On 06/06/2017 03:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > To clarify, one could contrast a procedure that resulted in the most reliable > predictions but was not built on any ontology vs. one that could be > communicated in a compact way and generalized to make other kinds of > predictions but all of its predictions were not as reliable. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 4:16 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems? > > If one had full genome sequences for a lot of people and used a supervised > learning procedure to predict the intellectual disability, that would not be > result in a coherent explanation? -- ␦glen? ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
