[FRIAM] FRIAM and causality

[Phil Henshaw]

Well, I'd hope it was only because I don't understand the physical
system or the model invloved, but it seems from what you're saying that
the diagram was actually just a model of an argument about a model and a
system.  That makes it much harder for it to display an *interesting*
way in which a real model fails to fit a real system.   Is that right?


Phil Henshaw                       ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave 
NY NY 10040                       
tel: 212-795-4844                 
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com    


> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com 
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels
> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 12:24 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
> 
> 
> Glen wrote:
> > No.  Adjusting a rule is entirely different from adjusting 
> a number. 
> > The adjustment of a number merely explores a space.  A 
> number spectrum 
> > does specify/describe a metric.  So, for example, adjusting 
> an integer 
> > with particular boundaries for the model, say [-10, 100] provides a 
> > well-defined space.
> For a fixed instruction set there's a fixed set of programs 
> that can be 
> encoded in a fixed sized vector.   The behaviors that such a 
> program can 
> exhibit are also entirely fixed given precise initial state.  General 
> and effective methods for global search can in fact be 
> exactly the same 
> for numbers and rules:   0) create a set of starting candidates 1) 
> evaluate them, 2) tweak the good 3) destroy the bad, 4) go to 1.
> 
> To have good optimizations for searching  number spaces (more 
> efficient 
> than exhaustive grid search), then additional assumptions need to be 
> made, such as that the numbers come from a differentiable function or 
> have systematic gradients.   For that matter [-10, 100] is not a well 
> defined space for a model because there are no units, and no given 
> meaning to how that range ought to relate to sensitivities in 
> other agents.
> 
> An agent model is an assembly.  If a component of the assembly is 
> tweaked a bit, that doesn't justify calling it a whole new model any 
> more than if a few parameters in the model changed a bit.   It is a 
> versioning issue.
> 
> Marcus
> 
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> 
>