Posted by
Phil Henshaw-2 on
Apr 05, 2007; 2:51am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/One-of-my-projects-tp523626p523650.html
Ah, yes... very significant observation. And then how do you represent the
systems of nature that are out of control and making up altogether new
rules??? And how do you tell which is which?
If you're a real pest for detailed observation you find that our rule making
is always an idealization of a conceptual level of organization in nature,
not the real behavior of nature. It's tough, but we're stumbling over the
error of representing our ways of predicting events as the mechanism by
which nature performs events. Its-a just not-a da case!
On 4/4/07, Marcus G. Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
> I've always disliked the term ABM because the notion of intelligent or
> semi-intelligent actors is a distraction. Really ABM and rule based
> modeling are the same thing. Agents models can be of car engines, etc.
>
> Defined conservatively, say to understand human behavioral patterns in
> virtual worlds as opposed to human behaviors in general, it does seem
> that human vs. computer agents could be useful to mix and match for
> modeling. Say, to refine models of the range of individual behavioral
> patterns for the sake of make predictions of groups of people in yet to
> be designed virtual worlds..
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070404/32eda862/attachment.html