Re: [FRIAM] Clarifying Induction Threads

2012-03-30 Thread John Kennison
It seems that we instinctively believe in induction –that patterns which have been repeated will continue to repeat. It seems natural to justify this belief by saying it has worked before, except, as Eric Charles has pointed out, this is circular. Eric Smith has suggested an alternative justif

[FRIAM] ABM of rigorous conversation (was: a further tangent)

2012-03-30 Thread glen e. p. ropella
lrudo...@meganet.net wrote at 03/26/2012 02:28 PM: > That is, what qualities of an asynchronous distributed > network of agents, passing messages about a changing collection of > diverse-but-usually-though-not-always-somewhat-aligned topics (or > maybe more specifically goals) are conducive to "rig

Re: [FRIAM] ABM of rigorous conversation

2012-03-30 Thread Grant Holland
Glen, Idea ca. Godwin's law: This isn't ABM - but what about modeling it with an ergodic homogeneous Markov chain with other appropriate stochastic assumptions. You should be able to obtain asymptotic behavior to some stationary distribution that represents "non-sequiturs" - if you choose you

Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Clarifying Induction Threads

2012-03-30 Thread John Kennison
I agree. People who think that a fair coin is "due" to come up tails after a string of heads are not so much anti-inductivist (or whatever term might be used) as naive in applying the rule that over the long run, the percentage difference between the the number of heads and number of tails ren

Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Clarifying Induction Threads

2012-03-30 Thread Arlo Barnes
But there are a lot more strings that will have a tail in it (infinite, or infinite minus one if you like) than there are strings that are all heads, randomly generated or otherwise. If randomly generated, we assume all strings are equally likely, so the chance of never getting a tail gets it's fai

Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Clarifying Induction Threads

2012-03-30 Thread Owen Densmore
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > The naive strategy for predicting coin tosses is anti-reductionist in John > Kennison's terms. There is even a rationale. We "know" that in the long run > (given a fair coin) the number of heads will be approximately the same as > the number

Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Clarifying Induction Threads

2012-03-30 Thread Nicholas Thompson
Wait a minute, folks. Aren't we talking about Deduction here. Our theory that the coin "should" be fair comes not from our experience but from probability theory. To relate coin flipping to induction, don't we have to talk about a coin of unknown fairness. How many heads do we have to flip o

Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Clarifying Induction Threads

2012-03-30 Thread Arlo Barnes
To put another point of perspective on this, all coins are of unknown fairness. -Arlo James Barnes FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http: