Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
To be clear, the process works this way:
1) casual observation and psychological induction leads to a (usually
mental) model
2) an experiment is designed based on that model
3) data are taken from the experiment
4) a more rigorous model is derived from the data
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
To be clear, the process works this way:
1) casual observation and psychological induction leads to a (usually
mental) model
2) an experiment is designed based on that model
3) data are taken
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
Well, I suppose that begs the question of what we mean by system. In
the case of the financial machinery, it is clear how that part of the
thing works. But, it is not at all clear how the whole system works.
If it were, then predictive algorithms would be reasonably
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
But you're focusing on extrapolation, right? It strikes me that you're
not talking about heuristic (a.k.a. explanatory) models but about
aggregative extrapolation.
More like looking for exploitable, repeatable cause/effect
inefficiencies in an ocean of activity.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Phil Henshaw wrote:
Well, the 'fault' of considering things from multiple points of view is
not contradiction, but confusing all those who don't!
Well, for us Discordians, it is certainly not a fault to confuse! In
fact, it is our holy obligation.
