Re: Predicting

abskebabs — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:45:21 GMT

Looks like quite an old paper. Makes me reminisce of chaos theory with all the phase maps! Ah the good old days...

Anyhow, it looks pretty interesting, even if the presentation leaves a bit to be desired, I might have a look when I spare some time to have a read; I'll let you know what I think.

Predicting

Jeremiah Dyke — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:40:08 GMT

First a quote from NNT The Black Swan

If you know a set of basic parameters concerning the ball at rest, can computer the resistance of the table (quite elementary), and can gauge the strength of the impact, then it is rather easy to predict what would happen at the first hit. The second impact becomes more complicated, but possible; and more precision is called for. The problem is that to correctly computer the ninth impact, you need to take account the gravitational pull of someone standing next to the table (modestly, Berry's computations use a weight of less than 150 pounds). And to compute the fifty-sixth impact, every single elementary particle in the universe needs to be present in your assumptions! An electron at the edge of the universe, separated from us by 10 billion light-years, must figure in the calculations, since it exerts a meaningful effect on the outcome. (p. 178)

The data seems to be taken from this paper (too mathy for me).

Yet, if we cant predict with precision billard balls, which possess no independant free will, how are we to predict and assign causality within a world of 6 billion actors? Why are we still listening to and quoting experts?

General

Re: Predicting

Predicting