Recent Posts
- Principles of biological computation: from circadian clock to evolution
- The science and engineering of biological computation: from process to software to DNA-based neural networks
- Elements of biological computation & stochastic thermodynamics of life
- Rationality, the Bayesian mind and their limits
- Web of C-lief: conjectures vs. model assumptions vs. scientific beliefs
- Idealization vs abstraction for mathematical models of evolution
- Allegory of the replication crisis in algorithmic trading
- 668,523 views
Join 2,752 other subscribers
Contributing authors
-
Abel Molina
-
Alexandru Strimbu
-
Alexander Yartsev
-
Eric Bolo
-
David Robert Grimes
-
Forrest Barnum
-
Jill Gallaher
-
Julian Xue
-
Artem Kaznatcheev
-
Keven Poulin
-
Marcel Montrey
-
Matthew Wicker
-
Dan Nichol
-
Philip Gerlee
-
Piotr MigdaĆ
-
Robert Vander Velde
-
Rob Noble
-
Sergio Graziosi
-
Max Hartshorn
-
Thomas Shultz
-
Vincent Cannataro
-
Yunjun Yang
Three goals for computational models
December 19, 2013 by Artem Kaznatcheev 12 Comments
The idea of computing machines was born to develop an algorithmic theory of thought — to learn if we could always decide the validity of sentences in axiomatic systems — but some of the first physical computing machines were build to calculate physics. In particular, they were tools of war, used to predict ballistic trajectories and the effects of not-yet-constructed hydrogen bombs. War time scientists had enough confidence in these computational models — Fermi’s bet notwithstanding — that they were willing to trust the computations’ conclusion that the Trinity test would not incinerate the atmosphere. Now computational modeling is so common, that we hear model predictions of the state of our (unincinerated) atmosphere every morning on the local weather report. Much progress has been made in modeling, yet although I will heed the anchor’s advice to pack an umbrella, I can’t say that I trust most computational models in domains outside of physics and chemistry. Actually, my trust in computational models has only gone down with exposure. Fortunately, modeling can have many goals and I can think of models as tools for (at least) three things: (1) predicting future outcomes of an external reality; (2) clarifying and formalizing (more verbal) theories; or (3) communication and rhetoric.
Read more of this post
Filed under Commentary, Models Tagged with metamodeling, philosophy of science