82,155
edits
Complex system: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:''“When a {{sex|man}} throws a ball high in the air and catches it again, he behaves as if he had solved a set of differential equations in predicting the trajectory of the ball. He may neither know nor care what a differential equation is, but this does not affect his skill with the ball. ''At some subconscious level, something functionally equivalent to the mathematical calculations is going on''.”'' | :''“When a {{sex|man}} throws a ball high in the air and catches it again, he behaves as if he had solved a set of differential equations in predicting the trajectory of the ball. He may neither know nor care what a differential equation is, but this does not affect his skill with the ball. ''At some subconscious level, something functionally equivalent to the mathematical calculations is going on''.”'' | ||
::— {{author|Richard Dawkins}} | ::— {{author|Richard Dawkins}} | ||
You ''cannot'' brute-force compute a [[wicked problem]], like catching a ball,<ref>Ohh, but catching a ball isn’t a wicked problem! I hear you cry. For hard-determinist, reductionist types maybe, but if you have ever pondered the odd lack of tenured physics professors in the national cricket team you may, like the [[JC]] beg to differ. The [[JC]]’s celebrated experiments with [[the proverbial crisp packet in St Mark’s Square]] | If you have ever wondered why science nerds tend to be unco-ordinated, wonder no more. | ||
You ''cannot'' brute-force compute a [[wicked problem]], like catching a ball,<ref>Ohh, but catching a ball isn’t a wicked problem! I hear you cry. For hard-determinist, reductionist types maybe, but if you have ever pondered the odd lack of tenured physics professors in the national cricket team you may, like the [[JC]] beg to differ. The [[JC]]’s celebrated experiments with [[the proverbial crisp packet in St Mark’s Square]] may help explain.</ref> ''but you can still catch a ball'': don’t think, “punch all the variables into a machine and run round to the resulting co-ordinate and stick your hand out.” You don’t have nearly enough information to even make the calculation. Instead, just run towards the damn thing, watching it, adjusting as you go.<ref>A study a while back found professional baseball players, while ''excellent'' at catching moving balls they were allowed to run towards, had a lot more trouble predicting where those balls would land when made to stand still.</ref> | |||
Now, compare catching a ball using the [[gaze heuristic]] — in essence make a rough judgment, react, observe, refine judgment and repeat — with predicting any future event — be it the local weather in Lissingdown,<ref>May the lord bless and watch over Ronnie Barker.</ref> or the Eurostoxx performance. The further in the future the event, the poorer your snapshot prediction of where it will land. | |||
A calculation of the parabola from initial conditions is likely to give you a a 50 m square error range. Likewise, the prediction of the rain in Lissingdown a month in advance is is highly speculative: we know it will be summer therefore it is likely to be warm but as to whether it will rain or not, who can say? Where the gays heuristic helps us is by constantly, and cheaply, refining that prediction as more information becomes available. Likewise with a weather forecast: my guess is as good as yours whether it will be raining at 5 p.m. on Saturday 6 months from now; but I can be certain as I look out my window to a clear blue London sky that it will not rain 5 ''minutes'' from now. | |||
This is hard for a [[complicated system]]s guy. [[Complicated system]]s you can brute force, and you can predict how they will behave. You can pre-bake solutions, making them more simple. In [[complex system]]s you can’t: need to keep your options open and be prepared to shift, adapt, re-evaluate, and toss out whatever you might have concluded before now. {{author|Philip Tetlock}}’s “{{br|Superforecasters}}” are complex systems thinkers. Baseball players are complex systems thinkers. Richard Dawkins, whom I like to imagine was dyspraxic,<ref>largely because he was trying to solve differential equations instead of running after the ball, of course.</ref> is a [[complicated system]]s thinker. | This is hard for a [[complicated system]]s guy. [[Complicated system]]s you can brute force, and you can predict how they will behave. You can pre-bake solutions, making them more simple. In [[complex system]]s you can’t: need to keep your options open and be prepared to shift, adapt, re-evaluate, and toss out whatever you might have concluded before now. {{author|Philip Tetlock}}’s “{{br|Superforecasters}}” are complex systems thinkers. Baseball players are complex systems thinkers. Richard Dawkins, whom I like to imagine was dyspraxic,<ref>largely because he was trying to solve differential equations instead of running after the ball, of course.</ref> is a [[complicated system]]s thinker. | ||