Projectible predicates in analogue and simulated systems

Synthese

Volumn 169, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 465-482

  Mattingly, James ^a   Warwick, Walter ^b  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Micro Analysis & Design Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Analogue modeling; Computational modeling; Human performance; Theory structure

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650477838     PISSN: 00397857     EISSN: 15730964     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-008-9433-4     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. M. Anderson J. Ensher M. Matthews C. Wieman E. Cornell 1995 Observation of Bose-Einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor Science 269 198
2. Anderson J.R., Lebiere C. (1998) The atomic components of thought. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
3. Barceló, C., Liberati, S., & Visser, M. (2000). Analog gravity from Bose-Einstein condensates. arXiv:gr-qc/00110262 v1.
4. Barceló, C., Liberati, S., & Visser, M. (2003). Probing semiclassical analogue gravity in Bos3-Einstein condensates with widely tunable interactions. arXiv:cond-matt/0307491 v2.
5. Best, B. J. (2006). Using the EPAM theory to guide cognitive model rule induction. In Proceedings of the 2006 Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation Conference. Baltimore, MD: SISO.
6. Birrell N.D., Davies P.C.W. (1982) Quantum fields in curved space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
7. Darken, C. J., & Jones, B. (2007). Computer graphics-based target detection for synthetic soldiers. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on Behavioral Representations in Modeling and Simulation. Norfolk, VA: SISO.
8. Garay, L. J., Anglin, J. R., Cirac, J. I., & Zoller, P. (2000). Sonic analog of gravitational black holes in Bose-Einstein condensates. Physical Review Letters, 85, 4643. Version cited here: arXiv:gr-qc/0002015.
9. Gluck, K. A., & Pew, R. W. (2001). Overview of the agent-based modeling and behavior representation (AMBR) model comparison project. In Proceedings for the 10th Conference on Computer Generated Forces and Behavioral Representation (pp. 3-6). Norflok, VA: SISO.
10. Gluck, K. A., Staszewski, J. J., Richman, H., Simon, H. A., & Delahanty, P. (2001). The right tool for the job: Information processing analysis in categorization. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. London: Erlbaum.
11. Goodman N. (1983) Fact, fiction, and forecast (4th edn). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
12. J. Mattingly 2006 Why Eppley and Hannah's thought experiment fails Physical Review D 73 064025
13. S. Roberts H. Pashler 2000 How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing Psychological Review 107 2 358 367
14. J.D. Smith J.P. Minda 2000 Thirty categorization results in search of a model Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26 3 27
15. W.G. Unruh 1995 Sonic analogue of black holes and the effects of high frequencies on black hole evaporation Physical Review D 51 2827 2838
16. Warwick, W., & Fleetwood, M. (2006). A bad hempel day: The decoupling of prediction and explanation in computational cognitive modeling. In Proceeding for the 2006 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop. Orlando, FL: SISO.
17. Warwick, W., & Napravnik, L. (2005). SAFBots: A uniform interface for embedding human behavior representations in computer generated forces. In Proceedings for the Fourteenth Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation. Universal City, CA: SISO.