wintler2 wrote:'Ought to' according to who - the IBM salesman?
Well, me. If it wasn't obvious I'll state it plainly: I am no statistician, nor do I know much of anything about computer modeling. But to take an example let's consider weather forecasting. From my own experience NOAA for instance can give me a pretty spot on forecast for weather conditions for the next 24 hours. The further into the future the forecast the less accurate it will likely be. This is because the climate system is incredibly complex. A one to one model would theoretically give you perfect prediction. But a one to one model has to be as complex as what it is modeling. Since we don't have complete data (we don't monitor the beats of butterfly wings) our variables and starting points are less certain and so accuracy into the future goes down. That is pretty simplistic I know. So feel free to tell me how stupid it is if that's what you think.
and which variables are becoming more certain?
I wrote:The two horsemen of the apocalypse that already stalk humanity and seem inevitable to me are global climate disruption and peak oil.
Those are the two that I believe are becoming more certain. Perhaps I shouldn't refer to them as "variables".
how does more computing power help when calculating the unquantifiable?
What exactly do you think is unquantifiable? I think I am probably misunderstanding what you mean.
As analogy this is the sort of thing I mean:
Improvements in computer power
Climate modelling has always made use of the best computers, but has been limited by the available computer power.
Our model has begun to include some of the complexities of the Earth system
Enlarge In the 1970s, as well as including only limited science, the models included very little detail and could only be run for very short periods.
A typical model divided the world up in to boxes 600km across with five levels to represent all the vertical structure. They were used to predict changes on timescales of months up to a year or so.
They were mainly used to understand climate processes rather than to predict the future.
The latest Hadley Centre model, HadGEM2-ES (which is at the forefront of state-of-the-art Earth system models), uses 135km boxes with 38 levels in the vertical. Critically though, it is one of the first models to include those complexities the Earth system already mentioned above.
The massive increases in computer power since the 1970s are used in the following ways in the Met Office Hadley Centre:
Much higher resolution is used to give more regional detail. The changes between the 1970s and the present day outlined above required 256 times more computer power.
Representations of all the key processes identified as important for climate change are included in the latest version of the model.
Much longer predictions are run, typically reproducing the last 150 years and predicting the next 100 to 1,000 years.
Far more experiments are run with different versions of the models so that we can quantify the uncertainty in our predictions.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-cha ... /modelling
Forgive me for saying so BPH, but i think you've got a bad case of info tech cargo cultism.
How so? I'm not quite that primitive. I don't think I'm assigning any greater power or accuracy to any post apocalyptic scenarios than they deserve because I haven't seen any yet. That's why I asked for sources in the op. I'm not surprised there aren't many. I don't think it's because they don't exist. I think it's because they are not published for what seem to me obvious reasons. They ain't pretty.
Computers are neat toys, perfect for entrancing droids and channeling hate with symbols, but pretty crap at anything material.
What do you mean by material?
Modelling highly complex unique processes? not a chance.
Well, depends on how you define
unique. I mean does unique mean by definition unpredictable since there is no precedent? If it does then you're just saying the unpredictable is unpredictable. If by unquantifiable and unique you are referring to the profound effect a single individual can have and the inherent unpredictability of any individuals actions then you might have an argument. But modeling the apocalypse would largely be about groups of people. Group behaviour is much more predictable. Politicians, generals and advertsing agencies do it successfully all the time.
I don't really imagine that any models of the apocalypse/post apocalypse would ever be anything other than probabilities. I cannot imagine any model that could predict with 100% accuracy what the future will hold, even if the starting variables were very well known and complete. Humans are the wild card.
I'm sure there's rich planetfuckers paying war-corp frat buddies to smoke dope and prognosticate on TEOTWAWKI, but thats cos they believe each others hype,
No doubt.
they didn't notice the collapse of the USSR remember.
Didn't notice or didn't predict? If predict how do you know? If they had what makes you think that would have been made freely available information?
I think TPTB exist, but they're a cat fight of competitively scheming sociopaths rather than any sort of coordinated organisation.
That's probably a good guess/model.
We like to think they exist & are in control just like we like to believe in god - because the alternative, that this is a chaotic and ultimately meaningless shitstorm within which humans are just one mob of spectator/actors, is unacceptably hard on our ridiculously overblown ego's.
Perhaps a better word than we. For me a lack of controlling/ordering force does not equal chaotic meaningless shitstorm.
In the post-collapse church of the Singularity, where visions are brought on by burning circuit boards, the TPTB will still be the default scapegoats.
The "competitively scheming sociopaths" are not scapegoats though. Scapegoats by defintion do not merit blame.
Don't get me wrong, theres plenty to prosecute TPTB for
Ok then. They're not scapegoats. Don't get
me wrong though. That doesn't mean we're all innocent.
they are not in overall control in any meaningful sense
I believe that's true. But I think it's worth considering that within their various territories/areas of influence they probably do have a great deal of control. And at some level while there is a lot of competitive scheming I think it's probably also true that there is a level of cooperation as well. Same as it ever was, except that I think there are fewer of them and power is becoming ever more concentrated.
otherwise why wouldn't they have forestalled runaway global warming, they live here too.
I sometimes wonder about that (whether they live here too), but yes, that's a puzzle. Not only that, they have children. Perhaps Freud was right and there really is a death instinct in us.
I suspect the popularity of all powerful TPTB (*which bph isn't posing here but many do elsewhere) is really due to the rationalisation they provide for apathy and collaboration. We are TPTB in our own lives, and that opportunity/responsibility terrifies many.
Would those "many" be easier to predict?
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:31 pm
