More philosophy about "All models are wrong, but some are useful"..

125 views

World90

May 28, 2021, 5:14:33 PM5/28/21
to
Hello....

More philosophy about "All models are wrong, but some are useful"..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many
scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I invite you to read the following interesting article of Daniel Lemire,
he is a PhD researcher in in Engineering Mathematics and MSc in Mathematics:

All models are wrong

https://lemire.me/blog/2021/05/26/all-models-are-wrong/

You can read more about Daniel Lemire here(he is also a professor):

https://lemire.me/en/

So notice that the PhD above must be smart at around 140 or 145 IQ.

So i think i am smart and the PhD researcher above in Engineering
Mathematics is is also saying the following:

"All models are wrong, but some are useful"

So since i think i am smart i have just read rapidly the above article
and i will right now rapidly find a pattern with my fluid intelligence,
and it is the following:

Notice that a mathematical model can be a static system, and this
mathematical model can give a prediction and a result that is an
approximation that is useful, so i can say that i can like measure it
relatively or absolutely, i mean i can say like locally that since the
result of a mathematical model can be an approximation that is not the
exact result of the result of the reality, so then i can say that
locally i can say that a mathematical model is wrong on the exactitude
of the calculation of the result, but i can say more globally that since
the mathematical model can give a "useful" result that is a useful
approximation that permits us to predict, so then the functionality that
is predictive of the mathematical model is not wrong, so i can then say
globally that the mathematical model is not wrong. And this proves that
the following saying is wrong:

"All models are wrong, but some are useful"

Other than that he is saying in the above article the following:

"Pure logic, pure mathematics only works locally. It does not scale. It
does not mean that pure logic is ‘bad’, only that its application is
limited."

I then say that even if it Pure logic, pure mathematics doesn't scale,
we have to look at its weight of importance and usefulness,
so it can be that even if the mathematical model doesn't scale,
it can have a great weight of importance and a great usefulness.

Yet more philosophy about composability and the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle and more..

On Composability

https://bartoszmilewski.com/2020/05/22/on-composability/

I think the above article is not taking into account the following
new discovery about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:

Evading the uncertainty principle in quantum physics

New technique gets around 100-year-old rule of quantum physics for the
first time

In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle dictates that
the position and speed of an object cannot both be known fully precisely
at the same time. Researchers now show that two vibrating drumheads, the
size of a human hair, can be prepared in a quantum state which evades
the uncertainty principle.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210506142138.htm

Scientist find a loophole in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

https://www.livescience.com/quantum-drum-duet-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle.html

More of my philosophy about inductive logic and more..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many
scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I invite you to read the following article about Hume’s on inductive logic:

Problem of induction

https://www.britannica.com/topic/problem-of-induction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

And i invite you to also read the following article about inductive
reasoning:

Be Humble: Black Swans and the Limits of Inductive Reasoning

https://www.datarobot.com/blog/be-humble-black-swans-and-the-limits-of-inductive-reasoning/

I will say that i am not in accordance with David Hume philosopher on
inductive logic, since notice that the above article is saying the
following about David Hume views on inductive reasoning:

"It is important to note that Hume did not deny that he or anyone else
formed beliefs on the basis of induction; he denied only that people
have any reason to hold such beliefs (therefore, also, no one can know
that any such belief is true)"

So i think that we have not to be "pessimistic" as David Hume
philosopher about inductive reasoning, since we have to distinguish
between the inductive reasoning that work and the inductive reasoning
that doesn't work correctly, so let me show you an example of inductive
reasoning that works, here it is: So to give an interesting example of
science of computing, we can ask: What is the time complexity of the
following binary search algorithm:

https://www.guru99.com/binary-search.html

And here is my mathematical calculations of its time complexity, so
notice that it uses inductive reasoning that works:

Recurrence relation of a binary search algorithm is: T(n)=T(n/2)+1

Because the "1" is like a comparison that we do in each step of
the divide and conquer method of the binary search algorithm.

So the calculation of the recurrence equation gives:

1st step=> T(n)=T(n/2) + 1

2nd step=> T(n/2)=T(n/4) + 1 ……[ T(n/4)= T(n/2^2) ]

3rd step=> T(n/4)=T(n/8) + 1 ……[ T(n/8)= T(n/2^3) ]

.

.

kth step=> T(n/2^k-1)=T(n/2^k) + 1*(k times)

Adding all the equations we get, T(n) = T(n/2^k) + k times 1

This is the final equation.

So how many times we need to divide by 2 until we have only one element
left?

So it must be:

n/2^k= 1

This gives: n=2^k

this give: log n=k [taken log(base 2) on both sides ]

Put k= log n in the final equation above and it gives:

T(n) = T(1) + log n

T(n) = 1 + log n [we know that T(1) = 1 , because it’s a base condition
as we are left with only one element in the array and that is the
element to be searched so we return 1]

So it gives:

T(n) = O(log n) [taking dominant polynomial, which is n here)

This is how we got “log n” time complexity for binary search.

More philosophy of what is philosophy..

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, so i will explain what is
philosophy, philosophy is by logical analogy like software engineering
(and read about software engineering in my thoughts below), i mean that
it is a high level knowledge and a high level view of the "way", for
example philosophy is the "way" of how do we have to behave as a society
or a global world, also you will notice that philosophy doesn't get into
the details as is getting science into the the much details, so this
proves that it is a high level knowledge, but more than that philosophy
can also give the high level way to science so that science gets into
the much details, so i think i am a philosopher that is smart and i am
like feeling more deeply philosophy and finding patterns of philosophy
with my fluid intelligence, so i am still inventing thoughts of
philosophy, so i invite you to read all my thoughts of my philosophy
below so that to understand my philosophy:

I will ask a philosophical question of:

What is software engineering and what is computer science ?

I think i am smart and i will answer that it is related to abstract
thinking and pattern recognition of human fluid intelligence,
since software engineering is about the high level knowledge,
i mean that it deals with such high level things as concepts
and there relationships, connections, and context..., so in software
engineering the most important thing is like abstract thinking , but
it can use sophisticated pattern recognition of fluid intelligence, so
it also uses high pure smartness, and this abstract thinking of software
engineering doesn't get into the "details" as is getting computer
science, so computer science gets into the much details, so software
engineering is like mathematical modeling that is also a science, but
computer science is "hard" science.

And to know more about mathematical modeling, i invite you to
look at my following software project of PDQ for Delphi and Freepascal
and it is my port of PDQ version 6.2.0 to Delphi on Windows and to
Freepascal on both Windows and Linux, i have also provided you with two
demos, one queuing MM1 demo, and another Jackson network demo. Also i
have provided you with my html tutorial on how to solve analytically(by
using mathematical modeling) the Jackson network problem provided to you
as a PDQ demo, and here it is so that to know what is mathematical modeling:

More of my explanation of my just new proverb about fluid intelligence
and smartness..

Here is my just new proverb:

"Human smartness is finding a small number of tools that permit to
solve a great number of problems, so when you look carefully at what is
human smartness you will notice that it is not about great quantity, it
is about a small quantity of good quality that permits us to be so
powerful. Being smart is not about quantity, it is much more about quality."

So i think i am smart and i will explain my new proverb above:

With pattern recognition of fluid intelligence we are finding
patterns that are the tools, and we are understanding and applying those
patterns that we are finding with fluid intelligence to
other many other new problems, so then we are not finding the patterns
again and again, so then we are not finding the tools that are those
patterns again and again, so pattern recognition of fluid intelligence
is a minimization process that permits to find a small number of tools
that permit to solve great number of problems. I think i am smart, and I
have to be more precise, so you have to understand that the minimization
process above is on the "finding", so when i say in my proverb above:
"Human smartness is finding a small number of tools that permit to solve
a great number of problems", the "finding a small number" is my good
abstract thinking and it means that it is a minimization process on the
"finding", since we are not "finding" the tools that are the patterns
again and again.

More of my philosophy about human fluid intelligence and smartness..

Human fluid intelligence involves being able to think and reason
abstractly and solve problems, so it needs abstract thinking and pattern
recognition, but we have to ask a philosophical question of:

What is abstract thinking in human fluid intelligence ?

So i will rapidly answer that abstract thinking is like
when in software programming we construct a "class" (that leads to an
object in runtime) and its attributes, it is like the way of
constructing a "concept" and knowing about what is its characteristics,
so abstract thinking is not finding a thing of a particular Husky Dog
and what is its characteristics, but it is finding the general concept
of a Dog and its attributes or characteristics, so i think that
good abstract thinking is much more powerful, so now i will ask a
philosophical question of:

What is the "relation" in human fluid intelligence between pattern
recognition and abstract thinking ?

I think that i have to define what is pattern recognition in human fluid
intelligence, so i will say the following:

Pattern recognition in human fluid intelligence is to recognize a
particular way in which something is done, is organized, or happens, so
i think that it is with this pattern recognition that we are able to
incrementally understand and we are able to construct concepts etc. so
this also permits to do abstract thinking in human fluid intelligence.

So i will give my example of pattern recognition with my fluid
intelligence that permits me to understand, here it is:

So if you want to go fast from my country Morocco to another country
called USA , how will you do it ? or what will you do ?

It is like my IQ test..

So if you answer that you need for example to use a fast airplane to go
the smart answer, so i will answer that the fast airplane too has to be
"reliable" and your "health" has too to permit it and the "weather" has
too to permit it, so now you are clearly noticing that you need to take
into account many "factors" so that to go fast from Morocco to USA, so
you are clearly noticing that being smart needs also a good plan

So that to understand more, let us say that you are measuring a human
IQ, so if it is high human IQ , this value is a measure that is relative
to the other human IQs, so you will say that this high IQ is much better
at adaptability than the other humans, but it is not correct measure,
because even science and technology have constraints that constrain(or
limit greatly) the expressiveness of human IQs, so then we can not say
that a high human IQ is better at adaptability than the other humans..

More philosophy about how to measure human IQ or human smartness..

I think i am smart, and i will talk about how to measure human IQs or
human smartness, first you have to know that you can measure relatively
or absolutely, so if you measure the IQ of a human, you will give a
value of IQ that is "relative" to the distribution of IQs of humans, so
can we ask if it is the right way to measure human IQs? i think it is
not, because there is a "very" important thing that is missing, and it
is that you have to also measure IQ or smartness relatively to the
"constraints" in our reality that constrain(or limit) human IQ or human
smartness, and i think this will give a much more realistic measure of
human IQs or human smartness, so if you are really smart you will start
by searching what are those constraints in the reality that constrain
human IQs or human smartness, because this way you will become really smart.

Let me give an example about how to measure IQs or smartness..

So if you are really smart you will give a smart example so that people
can understand, so here it is:

If i say: 2 + 2 = 4

So you will notice that this equality is also constrained by constraints
of reality, since for example you are noticing that it is not so
mathematically expressive, so this not mathematically expressive is also
constraining human IQ or human smartness, since if you understand and
learn this mathematical equality, another person will quickly do the
same, so the other person will adapt quickly to this level of smartness,
so now you are noticing the smart idea, it is that even science and
technology are constrained the same way, and this constraints on
science and technology constrain or limit the expressiveness of high
human IQs or high level of smartness so that other lower level human
IQs or smartness can attain the level of adaptability of high human
IQs, this is what is happening in our today world, and if you are smart
you will notice that there is something else that is happening and it
is that abstraction of complexity that reduce the complexity is making
others not understanding the complexity behind the abstraction and this
is not so efficient.

Here is more about the constraints on science and technology:

Is Science Going To End?

https://philosophynow.org/issues/68/Is_Science_Going_To_End

The Industrial Era Ended, and So Will the Digital Era

https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-industrial-era-ended-and-so-will-the-digital-era

More political philosophy about what is smartness..

I give you an example so that you understand:

If i give the following three words:

I, love, you.

It is not the same as if i give the following five words:

I, love, you, very, much

So you are noticing that the five words permit a more sophisticated
expressiveness, and notice that i am saying more sophisticated, since
the five words bring more efficiency, and this bringing more efficiency
is also what we call smartness, but notice that this smartness is
brought by using the "tool" that is composed of the five words, so the
tool that is our english language brings smartness, so then we have to
be convinced by the fact that the tool like internet brings a much more
efficiency and this much more efficiency brings much more smartness, so
now you are noticing that smartness is not only genetical or cultural,
but it is also the smartness of using the tool, and this is a very
important thing, since the tool can be powerful and it can advance very
much a human and can make a human really smart. So you have to
understand that we are also in an Era of powerful tools such as internet
that can advance very much a human and that can make a human really smart.

And i invite you to read my thoughts of my philosophy here:

Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here: