MishMash

What is uncertainty?

A couple of recent activities have forced me to explore my discomfort with with the way the word uncertainty is used in flood risk management. One of these activities was a refinement and extension of the wiki on methods for handling uncertainty in flood risk management that I have been involved in putting together as part of the Flood Risk Management Research Consortium. The other is an ongoing attempt to write a paper, which also deals with, among other things, uncertainty. I find writing incredibly hard, not least because I can't stop thinking about things like this.

I have assumed, since I first thought about it, that certain and its various cognates (certainty, uncertain, uncertainty, ...) referred originally to a state of mind, and that through a process of metonymic transfer they had come to be used to refer to the object of that state of mind: the thing about or because of which one was, or was not, certain. A trawl through the OED, to which the University subscribes, presumably hoping that doing so will result in a net productivity gain among its employees, suggests that this is not the case.

For all of these words, the first definition (and I presume order is significant) given by OED is related to something being "determined, fixed, settled". For certainty, the mental state which I assumed was the primary meaning appears only in the fourth, "the quality or fact of being (objectively) certain", and fifth, "the quality or state of being subjectively certain; assurance, confidence; absence of doubt or hesitation" definitions.

The etymology given for certain makes things clearer

a. OF. certain (= Pr. certan, Sp. and It. certano), repr. late L. or Romanic type certan-us, certan-o, f. cert-us determined, settled, sure, orig. pa. pple. of cern-ere to decide, determine, etc. The sense-development had taken place already with L. certus.

(OED)

So the root meaning of certain would appear to be "having been decided/determined", and the metonymic transfer, if anything, proceeded in the opposite direction from that which I had supposed, from the fact of my having decided something to my state of mind having done so.

In launching myself into the OED, I was looking for justification for using uncertainty in a constrained sense to refer only to a state of mind. I didn't find it, which leaves my original problem unsolved. To design software which supports a more explicit treatment of uncertainty in flood risk management requires that we address all of the many aspects of uncertainty, and these go far beyond the numerical-computational treatment provided by the tools of quantitative uncertainty analysis. To do so, or even to explain the need to do so, we must be able to distinguish these many aspects in both thought and language, in turn requiring the use of a vocabulary which recognises these distinctions. Using uncertainty to refer indisciminately to both the object of a state of mind and that state itself renders clarity of thought, and with it communication, impossible.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

(Albert Einstein)

True objective certainty is only possible in the context of formal systems such as mathematics and logic. Everything else, including the results of modern science, is subjective. The use of certitude, according to the OED, has since Hobbes been increasingly restricted to "the quality of being subjectively certain" [my emphasis], and is thus the opposite of doubt. Science allows us to develop justified certitude, which might tend towards objective certainty but cannot ever get us there. Flood risk management draws heavily on modern-scientific methods and results; this injects a certain amount of "objectivity" into the process, but in the end most decisions still have much more to do with certitude, subjective certainty, than with objective certainty.

Perhaps, then, I can use doubt and certitude to refer to the states of mind of participants in the decision-making process and uncertainty, in the manner familiar to most of my potential readers, to refer to the objects which, by their uncertainty, inspire doubt.

Peirce on metaphysics

The following quote is a match for my argument that by refusing to accept the task of establishing an underlying theory, a metamodel or ontology, of "integrated" models, efforts such as the HarmonIT project severely limit their long term value.

Find a scientific man who proposes to get along without any metaphysics -- not by any means every man who holds the ordinary reasonings of metaphysicians in scorn -- and you have found one whose doctrines are thoroughly vitiated by the crude and uncriticized meta physics with which they are packed. We must philosophize, said the great naturalist Aristotle* -- if only to avoid philosophizing. Every man of us has a metaphysics, and has to have one; and it will influence his life greatly. Far better, then, that that metaphysics should be criticized and not be allowed to run loose.

C. S. Peirce

Every simulation code, every modelling system and tool, unavoidably embeds a set of assumptions about the nature of models and of the modelled systems. These inevitably vary to a greater or lesser degree between such systems. Blind coupling leads inevitably towards increasing inconsistency, with all of the cognitive load and risk implied by that.

Artificial Intelligence? Pah.

Long ago Dad introduced me to a quote, which he believes to have been first uttered by a head of the AI group at the University of Edinburgh.

Artificial it may be, Intelligence it most certainly isn't. [Source unknown]

I have in the past found Google to be quite effective at locating sources of quotes for me. In this case it is of no assistance whatsoever. If anyone has any leads on this, I'd love to know. If not, you heard it here first.

Spread your wings and fly, little meme.

What is ontology?

Dad asked me how I was getting on with Haystack, and my response was:

It isn't usable, at least not without about a gigabyte of RAM. If it gets to the point that they say the ontology is stable (or migration to new versions will be supported) then I'd consider whether getting a gig of ram just for the sake of running it was worthwhile.

To which Dad rejoined,

What IS ontology?

So, what is ontology?

Scientists aim to develop conscious robot

Here we go again. CORDIS reports that computer scientists from the University of Essex and neuropsychologists from the University of Bristol have got funding to try to develop a "conscious" robot.

'Consciousness is perhaps the last remaining mystery in understanding what it is to be human. By attempting to build physical systems which can produce a form of artificial consciousness, we hope to learn more about the nature of consciousness,' explained Owen Holland, senior lecturer in computer science at the University of Essex and leader of the project.

As with previous so-called AI research, there may be all sorts of valuable information comes out of this, but if they convincingly create consciousness, I'll eat my hat.

Weinberger: The Tragedy of Coloring Books

David Weinberger:

And then you come to coloring books that train kids to see the world as edges to be filled in. Put down your crayons, kids. I have bad news: There are no outlines in the world, only swaths of color that are themselves fractally multi-hued.

The problem with describing knowledge using formal logic? Formal logic is based on well defined concepts, concepts with well defined edges. We define concepts by much more flexible means than if (properties x, y, z are true of object) then object is a whatever.

We're back to this problem which I previously commented was not quite "the symbol grounding problem". There we are, it's the colouring book problem.