I think the point is that the relations or contingencies you mention can be cast as posterior probabilities from observed many-body correlations. Distributional thinking works fine in that case too, it is just that some of those conditional probabilities get very close to 1. Others relations are softer, only giving slightly favorable odds. Still others can be modeled, having surprising<http://cds.cern.ch/record/154856/files/pre-27827.pdf> behavior.
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of "thompnicks...@gmail.com" <thompnicks...@gmail.com> Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Date: Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 9:07 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anthropological observations Jon, Can you explain to me what in thunderation Eric’s comments on objects has to do with my comments on contingencies. I am sure there IS a connection, but I just can’t see it. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Jon Zingale Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 9:46 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anthropological observations Eric, Bravo. Sure, maybe TLDR, but a wonderful read anyway. Jon
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
