Dear Zachary Knutson

As an educated researcher I understand the following....

There is no established method for building models. Neither scientific nor philosophical literature has been able to completely generalize the design process, which suggests that model building includes an element of craft and ingenuity, such as experimental design, or intangible aspects of creativity and art that avoid generalization (Morgan & Morrison, 1999). Discussions by Grecis (2018) lead to a fundamental idea in the estimation of uncertainties in the formulation of the model: the uncertainty of the model can only be derived from directly accessible knowledge. After building the model, researchers calculate the uncertainty budget using only the identified sources of uncertainty, although the existence of “unknown unknowns” (Pommé, 2016), is generally accepted. Thus, the model uncertainty can be better understood as an indication of the validity of the structure of the formulated model. Researchers can then adapt to this validity, depending on the results of the measurements, but independent of the uncertainty of the model.

Conscious observers build their own perspective of the world around them, based on experience, knowledge, and intuition. Observers select significant characteristics and discard the numerous connections that seem insignificant, by creating a model of Nature in their minds, consisting of nearly infinite elements. Therefore, any model of the world (religion, science, philosophy) leads to the Universe being perceived inaccurately and is obscured by the information noise. Therefore, absolute accuracy cannot be observed in any statement. As the poet Bulat Okudzhava writes, “Everyone chooses for himself a woman, a religion, and a road.”

Привет Boris Michailovich Menin

Думаю, что знаний всякий момент у индивида ровно столько, чтобы не впасть ему во скуку от временного, как бы всезнания. Куда приятнее посклокничать или, лучше, пофантазировать о материальной поддержке.

Какая скрипка: деревяшка или Страдивари - неважно, если уметь играть. Так и с компьютерами - любой комп - произведение искусства своего времени. А времена не выбирают...

Dear Thomas Anthony Troszak , maybe you had the opportunity to note that recognition from a photo is given to every person easily and naturally, as long as there is an image in the brain of what you wanna recognise. For example, I have remembered your face for a long time and I will be able to identify without any effort at a confrontation almost certainly. Where is the process of cognition here? The process of cognition is thorny, requires a lot of energy ATP, similar to towing a load to the top of a hill. Sweat, fatigue and disappointment are usual things in comprehending knowledge. It seems to me that you are mooring in the wrong harbour.

And the fact that the learned brethren sometimes look like a herd of sheep - here you are right - it is scary to be alone.

Dear Dmitry Kovriguine , Thomas Anthony Troszak ,

Your comments are special and prove the concept that each observer chooses a model of the observed phenomenon according to his knowledge, life experience and Intuition.

My request (if it is possible) to explain with detailes how you can calculate a value of the uncertainty inherent in your model???

What you declare is nice to hear but how it can be applied to real physics?

Дорогой Boris Michailovich Menin

С неопределенностью справляется покуда та позволяет. Вот пример последнего часа, как это удается, см. в конце.

Выпускная квалификационная работа студента xxx представляет собой самостоятельно выполненное студентом научное социально-экономическое исследование на тему «Имитационная оценка парка автобусов маршрута № 3 в Нижнем Новгороде по частичным статистическим данным, собранным за три дня наблюдений». Эта инициативная работа сугубо прикладного характера, который диктуется целесообразностью проведения прогнозного мониторинга по вопросу качества предоставления транспортных услуг автобусами маршрута №3 в Нижнем Новгороде, вследствие многочисленных отрицательных отзывов пассажиров за последние годы. Объем работы 40 листов, 15 иллюстраций, 11 таблиц, работа оригинальна, признаков плагиата нет.

Цель ВКР студента xxx состояла в оценке среднего интервала движения автобусов маршрута №3 с помощью имитационной модели, построенной с использованием минимальных статистических данных, достаточных для получения адекватного результата.

Задачи исследования:

· по данным мониторинга движения автобусов №3 на маршруте оценить в течение минимально необходимого количества времени наблюдений количественный состав автобусного парка;

· построить имитационную модель движения транспорта на маршруте с целью определения среднего временного интервала движения транспорта или времени ожидания пассажиром автобуса на остановке;

· сравнить полученные результаты с реальными данными для проверки адекватности мониторинга;

· оценить нынешнюю ситуацию по поводу качества предоставления транспортных услуг пассажирам: изменилась ли она в сторону улучшения или ухудшения, осталась ли прежней.

Поставленная задача решена студентом в полном объеме, и увенчалось следующими результатами.

· Минимальные статистические данные, достаточные для адекватного прогнозного мониторинга движения автобусов по маршруту №3 формируются за три дня наблюдений. Дополнительный контрольный недельный мониторинг данных существенным образом не сказался на прогнозных результатах;

· Установлено, что в среднем на маршруте находится 10 машин, автобусный парк составляет 21 подвижных единицы;

· Расчетный средний интервал движения транспорта по маршруту составил примерно 15 минут со стандартным отклонением 5 минуты. Статистический эксцесс существенен: минимальное время ожидания пассажиром автобуса на остановке – 10 минут, минимальное – 25 минут.

В ходе выполнения ВКР студентом xxx по личной инициативе получены новые результаты, уже выходящие за рамки изначально сформулированного задания:

· Установлено, что отдельные подвижные единицы маршрута №3 эксплуатируются во времени крайне неравномерно, что может привести часть парка автобусов к преждевременному износу.

· Обнаружена зависимость количества работающего транспорта на маршруте от времени суток, которая имеет типичную пару максимумов утреннего и вечернего пикового трафика на дороге.

Эти результаты открывают перспективу дальнейшего детального развития имитационной модели. Согласно этим новым результатам можно прогнозировать не только средние значения процесса и отклонения от среднего, но и моделировать динамику отдельных индивидуальных подвижных единиц автобусного парка во времени.

Dear Dmitry Kovriguine

Your long comments on Russian are not clear for me.

Would you be able to explain shortly your attends?

Sure Boris Michailovich Menin

When working hard we're melting old paradigms for new findings which pass uncertainty by hyperbolic track. What's it means?

Physics and mathematics differ from other disciplines in the specificity of their description. They differ precisely in concreteness, in contrast to, say, the content that is present in fiction or in texts on economics, where any concreteness may be redundant or even harm the cause, but not be beneficial. Nevertheless, in scientific and educational literature, an appropriate balance between concreteness and substantiveness is always useful. This suggests an interpretation with reference to the Heisenberg uncertainty relations in physics: if a text is concrete, like most mathematical works, then it is usually empty. On the contrary, any poem by Pushkin is filled with content, but almost does not bear any concreteness.

Choice your style, uncertainty is just a constant.

Dear Dmitry Kovriguine

Many thanks for your original and original comments!

At the same time, how to translate or adapt your remarks to calculating model's uncertainty ??? :-)

Dear Dmitry Kovriguine

Regarding my question: how to calculate the model's uncertainty.

Physical phenomena are generally studied with the help of a model that precedes the construction of an experiment. There is no experimentation without a model. A model is a theoretical construction based on observations and differs from the specific phenomenon that it represents, due to which, there is a gap between any natural phenomenon and its scientific model (Jylkkä & Railo, 2019).

My attends are to find an objective method to identify the optimal model, which is a universal indicator to quantitatively assess the proximity of a model to the object under study, based on its internal structure and is restricted only by external factors (the will of the researcher).

The suggested approach is based on the concept that the basic (primordial) accuracy of the model must be independent of the results of the experiments, computer calculations, or the calculation of the identified uncertainties. The initial inevitable minimum uncertainty is due to the qualitative and quantitative set of variables in the model, which is an alternative method to assess the accuracy of a model. Therefore, it is necessary to employ an information-based and theoretically-proven method to formalize the identification of an optimal model for a specific phenomenon by considering the amount of information contained within the model.

The formalism is based on three axioms. Firstly, the specific variables are chosen from an existing system of units. The individuality of each model is then determined by the set of the selected base quantities from the system of units used. However, the most recent (and perhaps the most controversial) axiom is that the selection of any variables in the model is carried out on an equiprobable basis.

Essentially, different observers select groups of variables that differ from each other, to describe (to model) the same real-worldphenomenon, which is explained by the original philosophical concept (knowledge, experience, intuition) of each research team. Human expectations are biased and differ from person to person, with measurable consequences for behavior and cognition (Lynn et al., 2020). Therefore, the admissibility of considering (accounting) this axiom can be explained as follows: consider that one observer describes an electron as a particle and another, as a wave. Because both the observers use different mathematical descriptions of the same physical object, neither description can be considered as false. They are both right, even if they differ in their conclusions about the characteristics of the behavior of the electron. Essentially, these observers concur on the structure of the electron itself, which is the primary objective. Because the electron fundamentally exists, most physicists can concur on its properties, regardless of their perspective and their representation of the theory.

This situation confirms the possibility of the equal probable accounting for any variable from the SI in the model due to the philosophical perspective of the surrounding world of a particular observer. Thus, the postulate of the a priori equiprobability (the lowest possible predictability) for any variable is defined. Koide et al. (2015) proposed a similar concept, wherein the observed variables can be expressed as stochastic quantities.

Consequently, a model can be defined as a type of "channel" to identify the individuality of each observed phenomenon under the conditions in which the observers, by creating a model and choosing variables that are significant from their perspective, destroy many potential connections between this phenomenon and the environment by ignoring certain combinations of influences. The human brain is limited in its ability to process information from the senses, which induces the probability of overlooking hundreds of hidden effects. In fact, the researcher does not control all the independent variables (Milton & Passolo, 2020).

Dear Boris Michailovich Menin ,

it happened that in an everyday situation with uncertainty things are much worse than in physics. I wrote a couple of texts on this topic on the topic of the current epidemic. Supposes I, there are only two parameters of the epidemic model. But all predictive technologies and models, it doesn't matter how many parameters were added, failed. Why? Due to the unavoidable human factor. But the understanding of this factor did not eliminate the quantitative discrepancies, since a posteriori situation is needed for the feedback to work for repair uncertainty. In other words, there is nothing to compare with yet. This is an insoluble contradiction. Who needs posterior information? But if you are not in a hurry, then you can understand how it can be adjusted to the new a priori situation. The current epidemic is the voice of youth, but not of a husband yet.

In technology and physics, everything is much simpler. There are shackles of laws there.

Dear Boris Michailovich Menin ,

Remembered where supercomputers are relevant:

1. "Moscow real estate".

2. Nuclear weapons.

3. I don’t know.

The first item is profitable, the second one is costly. Though both the first and the second items are very expensive. This business intends for corporations but not for individuals. Being the last one, I'll never taste the advantages of supercomputers.

Dear Thomas Anthony Troszak ,

I like your style and personality. Also, I like to do specific things and evaluate along with this criterion my potential partners. If you wanna do something valuable, then let's write a program for recognizing the letter "T" (Tom), or maybe "D" (Dima). Let the playground be 8 x 16 pixels.The choice is yours if the courage does not leave you.

I cannot help but notice that it was different with Newton. Every stone falls to the ground but the Moon is also a stone that does not fall to the ground. This is a paradox that Newton was able to reveal. An echo of this story is the tale of a fallen apple.

Dear Dmitry Kovriguine

Thank you for your two comments. They include interesting ideas connected to our life.

At the same time, I mentioned (sorry) that they did not help me to understand how you calculate uncertainty of your model formulated for the second wave of COVID in Iran ??? (for me, I do not have good English, it is recommended to send your article for proofreading :-) ).

Let's get back to our rams: how are going to increase your predictions?

Dear Thomas Anthony Troszak

I am very appreciated to get your remarks. To my point of view, for me, it is difficult to translate your ideas on the language of the measurement theory.

If you allow me, I will remind you of a Russian joke: Why does a goat need a button accordion ???

Please, help me to adapt your comments to accuracy of a model, if it is possible.

Thank you

Dear Boris Michailovich Menin

In the frame of your question, You need no information on the secondary waves but reading a preliminary text: Preprint It's the very time to learn a pandemic lesson: why have pred...

Dear Dmitry Kovriguine

It is very interesting and important paper!

When and in what journal you are going to publish it?

I will advertise it on different forumes.

Thanks

Уже опубликовал, Boris Michailovich Menin , во вторичных волнах в журнале второго медицинского. Тему закрыл до конца эпидемии - марта следующего года. .

Dear Thomas Anthony Troszak

In my opinion, excuse me, your epistolary work, honestly, is simply incomprehensible to me. You are like shooting a cannon at sparrows.

I understand that you have a lot of free time, well, just have pity on the readers ...

Thomas Anthony Troszak

T's was a joke with fighting over the symbol perception. This job nothing does intellectually but lot of a work awaits by hands, an evening or even two, fetches I. Get it free but for money if rephrasing.

Your Dima.

Oh yeh, Thomas Anthony Troszak

I like your style again that my students often demonstrate. They seriously using plagiarism with similar matter close to the topic tried to make the computer recognize a symbol but without description precepting of this symbol.

After rejection, they said that it is not honest from my side since there is no room to rewrite what you need from the net.

With my reverences, Dima

Dear Thomas Anthony Troszak

Your remark : " A tool is only as good as the person using it."

For me it is difficult not agree with you.

At the same time, I would like to put your attention once more on ONE point:

Person (scientist, engineer, observer, he or she) formulates his vision of the physical pnenomena basing on his knowledge, life experience and intuition - one can say - phylosophical opinion.

As a physical-mathematical tool for formulating a model, he uses different variables from any system of units (SI, SGS, Plank system and so on.). There is no other way.

My problem (and I try to convince scientific society) is:

If any system of units consists of the finite number of variables (read my articles) and a model includes the finite amount information (read Del Santo, F., & Gisin, N. (2019) Physics without determinism: Alternative interpretations of classical physics. Phys. Rev. A, 100, 1–9.

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.062107.),

there is the initial inevitable blurring of the object that is being studied by the observer.

This explains the impracticability of achieving infinite precision!

Do you agree with this ???

Dear Thomas Anthony Troszak

The second time you introduce an example with Zeno's Paradoxes.

As a philosopher , you can find the attractive auditorium.

From my point of view, your remarks cannot help to understand from the physics position, a real problem with the accuracy of a model ....

Привет всем, здравствуйте Boris Michailovich Menin

СКИФ МГУ - суперкомпьютер, способен производить около 47 TFLOPS. Предназначен для быстрого решения большого числа задач в разных областях науки: якобы, аэро- и гидродинамике, метеорологии, магнитной гидродинамики, физике высоких энергий, геофизике, абсолютно точно, - в финансовой сфере при обработке больших объёмов сделок на биржах, якобы, климатологии, криптографии, компьютерного моделирования лекарств.

Если миллиард по жирной строке умножить на 0,01 копеек, то получается неплохой приварок к жалованию за день. Правда, надо заплатить за аренду супера + потратиться на з/п обслуги. Мой лэптоп, даст Бог, отработает навару в 10-8 копеек, - миллиард по жирной строке не поможет, разорюсь на электричестве. Вот и вся здесь точность и прагматика. Кадры решают всё.

Dear Dmitry Kovriguine

As wrote the playwright A N Ostrovsky “Something must exist for people, something so austere, so lofty, so sacrosanct that it would make profaning it unthinkable.”

Boris Michailovich Menin

Истинное величие не в том, что можешь заработать, и, заработал, но в том, что можешь заработать, а не заработал.

Check https://www.britannica.com/technology/supercomputer

Yes, such powerful computers and advanced mathematics methods gives one a head start and confidence while writing a paper.

Hi there, my dear colleges by mailing the topic above. I've got five cents to insert them in our speech. The main question is at the end of the message.

Like any "excellent" business manager, the supercomputer is mainly engaged in self-analysis which eats almost all of its resources. First, input data goes to "warehouses". These warehouses are not dimensionless. It is known from logistics (and from homework in the kitchen) that if the warehouse is already half full, then it will work inefficiently. It turns out that the redundant data must be moved from time to time to new not yet half-filled warehouses. It's a problem. But, who forces you to overfill the warehouse to do unnecessary work later on moving excess data to a new warehouse? Perhaps it was better to acquire a large number of warehouses? Over again, this is not the case. It may be that there is little data, but a lot of warehouses. But, most importantly, you must not forget that filling warehouses with data is not the target in itself. Data should be efficiently distributed among the processors of this data. The more primitive the actions of the handler and the more of these handlers, the better. A new problem arises. How many such handlers need to be organized, and to what extent should their actions be simplified? Again, we've got an unsolvable problem.

Well, for fast data processing, compromise algorithms for improving the operation of a supercomputer are used since the optimization of almost all computational processes with semantics is an empty matter. Optimization in the sense of pure mathematics does not lead anywhere, namely, to infinite recursive introspection.

A question. What is more interesting - to play computer games, and be a cheerful frivolous person, or write programs for these games, and be a boring abstruse bore, so that other, those "dull-witted" people play? I choose beer with squid following my soul, but the mind makes me boring. And what about you?

Sincerely.

Dear Dmitry Kovriguine

"but the mind makes me boring "

Griboedov: Woe from wit!

Да, Boris Michailovich Menin , потренировался в спиче по курсу ОС. Не любо ли Вам иногда побаловаться ассемблером? Хорошая прохлада для фантазий. Угадайте, какое есть волшебное слово для входа в ОС. А паче того, не листая книжек, - что же это слово значит.

Dear Dmitry Kovriguine

I did not understand even your Russian :-). Sorry.

“An Introduction to SYMBOLIC LOGIC” by Susanne K. Langer

The most powerful magic ‘trick’ is brought on stage by Langer in her third chapter, where she brings in the idea of “Truth-Value” to reflect the fact that when a speaker says something about the world they may be mistaken – or worse, lying; in other words, the proposition, when understood, may be viewed as “true” or “false” if we interpret the meaning in terms of the real world. The Game of Logic is to see how far we can link such propositions together, so that when we know certain components are ‘true’ then see if the conclusions of the whole set are true or not; the final result is called its “truth-value”. It is like trying to solve a simple problem in algebra when we told the result must only be one or zero. The weakness of this game is to know how truthful are the claims that key parts are indeed true or not. As we will see, logic does very little to help with this fundamental problem although this is what the common man expects of so-called logic and rationality. Another huge problem with logic is that the time of the statements is not provided; they are supposed to be always the case; unfortunately, science itself follows in this mathematical style simplification: an equation (like E=mc2 ) is assumed to be always true. Experience shows us that context almost always plays an important role in life.

Доброе утро, Boris Michailovich Menin

The magic word is 55 AA. The magic word does not carry any meaning – just something like “Hasta la vista”. If you don't wanna make scanning for the information, then so it is your will. I just wanna shake you that there is a reaction to magic words in cyberspace.

My friend reads no new texts, and usually says to me “Do I need it?” We refuse to discuss something if the topic is new to him. We just need to have a confirmation of what is already known.

The outstanding logic was built by Emil Post, Kurt Gödel, Turing, and others. Logic is available to an ordinary person if he has already learned something else's before of someone. An ordinary person cannot advance in logic, but only those who have a displaced consciousness go forward. Is this you need?

Hi Dr Boris Michailovich Menin . Yes I think so because if we increase the variables in the calculations and so this will increase the probabilities in calculations , this will give us a better ( more accurate ) results which can easily done by supercomputers in a minimum time.

When you ask whether you believe it or not, you come to the conclusion that over the past 20 years, huge share of scientific and technical articles cannot be refuted or confirmed. Original ideas, designs of various equipment, various technological processes developed by talented scientists and engineers are presented by models in scientific works without comparing the magnitude of the

experimental uncertainty achieved with the difference between the theoretical curves data and the results of experiments.

To paraphrase the famous quotation of Lenin, how far all these models are from the mass of people. It would seem that this requirement is the basis of the advancement of theoretical thought into practice. The percentage of talented articles is decreasing. So what has a greater impact on scientific progress: theory,

experiment or the desire to increase your citation?

Dear Aref Wazwaz

For me it is dufficult to agree with your comment: "if we increase the variables in the calculations and so this will increase the probabilities in calculations , this will give us a better ( more accurate ) results which can easily done by supercomputers in a minimum time "

My vision is the following (it is introduced in my last publication in JASIST

Article Construction of a model as an information channel between th...

1. Some significant aspects were not accounted for by the researchers. Specifically, in the modeling process, two interacting entities are absent in the natural system from the perspective of information theory: the International System of Units (SI), which “supplies” information to the model regarding the phenomenon under investigation by means of dimensional and dimensionless variables, and a researcher, who selects certain variables from the SI using intuition, knowledge, and experience to determine the accuracy of the model.

2. The basic (primordial) accuracy of the model must be independent of the results of the experiments, computer calculations, or the calculation of the identified uncertainties. The initial inevitable minimum uncertainty is due to the qualitative and quantitative set of variables in the model, which is an alternative method to assess the accuracy of a model.