To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
No information is sold or given to third parties. See our T&Cs
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Schmidhuber (LSTM etc) https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4360; Friston etc
Where this might have a difficulty is when one discusses mathematical understanding. This comes up with computer generated proofs, and in mathematical education. It is objective, but a property of a learner (one can explain a proof, one can generate a new theorem, one can apply a particular method to a new area or recognise a dual). This obviously overlaps a lot of modern physics, and partly addresses de Regt’s problem about simplified “false” models that are actually deeper mathematically, though it does ring with his description of understanding as a skill. But no equivalent to causality, ISTM, especially if one is a constructivist in these matters.
In the example of population genetics, I think it is the “higher” level where selection etc is happening – the molecular genetics is too “low”. It is the coarsening of the description that allows one to see what is really going on (sim thermodynamics, QM) in a complex system.
I don’t know Hempel, no idea who he is or the context. I don’t think i want to know any more about him.
It conjures the image of a man sitting on a spike or a Dalek.
Comments are closed.