Quote Originally Posted by pvebber View Post
Slap,

Your 'understand' implies the ability to ascertain what the possible future states of the system are. If you can't do that you can't create probabilitiies. I actually had this discussion with Col Warden and we just not get past the point where acknowlegdes he needed te 'effect' what I was calling prediction (develp knowledge of what produces future states of the system) and simply disagreed that such a thing constithted 'predictin'. To him it was n ot 'prediction if you not 100 percent certain it was correct-like a physics equation.
I would disagree that it isn't possible to determine what the potential futures look like. Again, you are falling into the trap Warden is arguing against- losing sight of the desired end state because we can't be sure exactly what will happen when we try to affect it. Yes, humans are human - not omniscient, falliable, and subject to react to events emotionally and not rationally. But you can still create a model of any system, and attempt to apply probabilities to it.

Take for example soil- it is a fairly complex system because there are all sorts of different materials that are part of it. Soils are pretty important to pretty much any infrastructure humans build. Yet a lot of what we know about soils engineering is simply theoretical models that allow us to model its behavior. We don't know the exact content, or even know exactly how it works - but with a certain degree of probability, we can use empirical data to predict how it will react. Yes, there are issues with the observer effects etc, but that doesn't mean you can't attempt to model a system's behavior.

He can define his terms how ever he wants, but point is that whatever you call i, the ability to project ahead in time the effect a set of perterbations will have on the future state of a complex system is not computable as a set iof probabilities. It would be nice if it were, but its not
Depends on how complex the system is and how good your data is.

My point about breaking is about the model breaking not about breaking the adversary system if you simplify the model of the system past the point of irreducibility it becomes b roken as a predictive tool (or that function that shall not be called prediction).
You are correct. But there are still potentially points where you can affect even a complex system. Additionally, it may be possible to pick COGs that are more predictable than others- obviously your level of confidence in your intel about a COG and its potential reaction to various effects has to enter into the decision making.

V/R,

Cliff