Steve writes:
< The whole world is responding to what is *roughly* the same virus with
*roughly* what is the same human phenotype/metabolism in a myriad of *roughly*
the same modes of human organization. >
There are hundreds of common HLA alleles across humans. In a diverse country
like the US, with hundreds of thousands of positive cases and tens of thousands
of deaths the hundreds of alleles would be well sampled. Too bad our medical
surveillance is so bad, and made worse by the moron. Imagine if everyone had
full genome sequencing and every viral sample was deep sequenced.
Marcus
________________________________
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Steven A Smith
<sasm...@swcp.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2020 10:11 AM
To: friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Judea Pearl: Book of Why
One way to address the N/A issue is to repeatedly perturb the real-world system
so as to elicit those correlations. When that is practical..
We are, in a time of real-world system perturbation, right now. The whole
world is responding to what is *roughly* the same virus with *roughly* what is
the same human phenotype/metabolism in a myriad of *roughly* the same modes of
human organization. This IS a testbed of human (-system?) response to a
widespread, somewhat invisible threat. From Wuhan to Singapore to Italy to
Iran to Sweden to Germany to NYC to WA State to the Navajo Nation to Florida's
beaches, this IS a huge coupled systems dynamics/agent-model executed in
real-time by real-people with real casualties and real consequences.
We are, to varying degrees (collectively) recording the results of these
"experiments" and if we are lucky (or smart, or both) we will do some post-game
analysis intended to understand more-better how best to (self-)organize around
a (nearly) existential world-scale threat. And to the extent this is a game
that will never end, we have to begin the analysis while we cope with it's
consequences. Feels a bit like the models pof Physics Interreality.
https://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.75.057201<https://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.75.057201>
Hanging too aggressive of a model on this (or collecting the data against too
premature of a model) will reduce the utility of such data gathering and
analysis. Whatever the dual of overfitting a model is? Overmodeling?
Premature Modeling?
What I'm looking (askance) to(ward) Pearl for is a better way of rapidly
constructing, maintaining, revising as generic of a model as possible in
response to "this moment". Four months ago we should have been interested in
models of how one limits a virus such as COVID19 getting a foothold in this
country. One month ago we should have been interested in how one limits
COVID19 (with new understanding of it's virility, it's fatality, it's symptoms,
it's mode of spread) once it HAS a foothold, now we are faced with trying to
understand how to cope with it once it is pervasive in our population whilst
continuing/returning to "business as usual" and in another thread, I'm
encouraging that we "try to plan/consider/think-about" what we want to do with
this somewhat "blank slate" (our ass?) we are having handed to us.
And how to think about this without premature modeling... what I think I was
railing (whining/pushing-back) about with Dave on the Bellamyist thread earlier
this morning.
- Steve
On Apr 19, 2020, at 8:33 AM, uǝlƃ ☣
<geprope...@gmail.com><mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, the argument I often end up making is that you can do a kind of face
validation with the fake data. Show it to someone who's used to dealing with
that sort of data and if the fake data looks a lot like the data they normally
deal with, then maybe more data-taking isn't necessary. If it looks fake to the
"expert", then more data-taking is definitely needed.
On 4/19/20 8:29 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I have a hard time with this as a way to extend data. If it is
high-dimensional it will be under-sampled. Seems better to me to measure or
simulate more so that the joint distribution can be realistic. And if you can
do that there is no reason to infer the joint distribution because you *have*
it.
On Apr 19, 2020, at 8:18 AM, Frank Wimberly
<wimber...@gmail.com><mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> wrote:
Going back and forth: If you infer the causal graph from observational data
you can use that graph to simulate data with the same joint distribution as the
original data.
--
☣ uǝlƃ
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... ....
. ...
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/
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... ....
. ...
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/
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... ....
. ...
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/
