Can thought be modeled using geometric or other methods?
“All models are wrong, some models are useful” – E.P. Box
Most of this document can be considered me obsessing over geometric models I have seen for defining and augmenting thought. I will try to collect as much of that thought as I can here, but I will also try to take it to a place where it can be connected with “smart” tools like modeling and simulation.
I want to talk about using geometic models as thought aids. I’ll start with a well know example and pose questions after and along the way.
title: “Modeling Thought” description: “” image: video:
References
model thinkers - this site does so much to illustrate where I wanted to go with this trilemma - like a dilemma but with three poles, eg. Good, Fast, Cheap: pick two
Example: Political Identity Modelling
1D Model
2D Model
Thoughts
The addition of an extra dimension makes it possible to make a finer point about political identity. Something is gained; probably more than what is mentioned here.
Some clarity and simplicity is lost in adding this dimension. Something is lost; probably more than what is mentioned.
-
Can we go higher in dimension to gain (and possibly lose) more?
-
Can we make it easier to visualize and play with this?
- it should be as easy as typing or sketching to create the visual
- should be able to connect model into a modelling and simulation environment (and define that environment)
- should be easy to increase dimensionality and reason about higher dimensions where visual model may fail