[FRIAM] Scientismists & functional noise

[glen]

I don't really get how that assertion relates to Dave's overlooked Signal. But it does fit right into K&W's assertion that sometimes tossing in more noise can help tease more signal from prior noise.

I disagree, though, that Monte Carlo is *unbiased*. It's really just a composition of sources for variation. Those sources, their shape and [ex|in]clusion, and the method by which they're composed can bias the composition one way or another. It may be the least biased way of doing the composition. But it's not *un*biased.

On 9/21/22 10:37, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Monte Carlo techniques aren't drawing upon some other source of knowledge.  It's an unbiased way to do search.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 9:48 AM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] Scientismists & functional noise
> 
> An exchange of letters on the role of noise in collective intelligence Daniel Kahneman, David C Krakauer, Olivier Sibony, Cass Sunstein, David Wolpert
> https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/26339137221078593
> 
> Yet more evidence that Dave's not alone in his "conviction that there is overlooked Signal in everyone else's Noise".

-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ