Since we are picking on aphorisms, I wish to add criticism to "all models are wrong, some are useful".
To a great extent, the qualities of the thing being modelled matters. For instance, natural numbers do have crisp, compact properties and can be modelled by sets. To claim that models are never correct is to deny that bisimulation ever exists between machines. It is fine, I suppose, as a world view, but proving bisimulation between things also seems fine. Weirder still is the case where things can model one another and yet not be useful. While closed lambda calculi, turing machines and agent based models can all model universal computers, limitations of various types can render any particular model useless. Only partially with tongue-in-cheek, I am not sure anyone has ever found Turing's machine to be useful for anything other than getting a passing grade on a senior year project. In the case of ants, do we really have to wait so long? Alright, time to run away before my ears are George Boxed...
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
