82,891
edits
Signal-to-noise ratio: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
[[Complexity]], you cannot. | [[Complexity]], you cannot. | ||
[[Complexity]], describes the ''limits'' of the [[paradigm]]. [[Complexity]] is the wilderness ''beyond'' the [[rules of the game]]. [[Complexity]] inhabits the noise, not the signal. Where there is complexity, ''the rules do not work''. Here ''data'' is relegated to ''noise''.<ref>Provisional | [[Complexity]], describes the ''limits'' of the [[paradigm]]. [[Complexity]] is the wilderness ''beyond'' the [[rules of the game]]. [[Complexity]] inhabits the noise, not the signal. Where there is complexity, ''the rules do not work''. Here ''data'' is relegated to ''noise''.<ref>Provisional theory: “information” is [[data]] framed with a hypothesis.</ref> | ||
This is why physical sciences apparently have a greater success than social sciences — cue Richard Dawkins’ obligatory scoff. Physical sciences generally address behaviour of independent events — rolling balls, [[Coin flip|flipping coins]], waves [[and/or]] particles of light. But rolling balls are not autonomous agents. They act independently. The behaviour of one will not influence that of another. Each [[coin flip]] is, as a condition of probability theory — independent.<ref>The technical term: “platykurtic”.</ref> Independent events obey Gaussian principles. They may be modelled. That is to say, they may be [[complicated]] but they remain predictable, at least in theory. When physical systems inexplicably go bang — Chernobyl, the Space Shuttle Challenger, the ''Torrey Canyon'' — the root cause will not be a failure of the physical science underlying the engineering, but some supervening cause invalidating the underlying assumptions on which the physical science was based. | This is why physical sciences apparently have a greater success than social sciences — cue Richard Dawkins’ obligatory scoff. Physical sciences generally address behaviour of independent events — rolling balls, [[Coin flip|flipping coins]], waves [[and/or]] particles of light. But rolling balls are not autonomous agents. They act independently. The behaviour of one will not influence that of another. Each [[coin flip]] is, as a condition of probability theory — independent.<ref>The technical term: “platykurtic”.</ref> Independent events obey Gaussian principles. They may be modelled. That is to say, they may be [[complicated]] but they remain predictable, at least in theory. When physical systems inexplicably go bang — Chernobyl, the Space Shuttle Challenger, the ''Torrey Canyon'' — the root cause will not be a failure of the physical science underlying the engineering, but some supervening cause invalidating the underlying assumptions on which the physical science was based. | ||