Guest guest Posted June 18, 2008 Report Share Posted June 18, 2008 >>> That's not actually correct. <<< Your narrative appears to support my simple explanation. With respect to chaos, I don't think our overly-simplistic explanations are expansively dissimilar. >>> . . . you can't predict with any certainty whether a particular element exists or has a given value. <<< With extrapolation of chaos, it is theoretically possible to predict those events and characteristics with absolute certainty; it only requires values for an infinite number of variables which practically, of course, is impossible. >>> The problem with EMS is that the number of variables is much, much too high to be able to compute. You would have to be able to know far too many details . . . <<< This is what I said. >>> You can predict where higher call volumes are likely (population centers, certain communities, etc.) or when higher call volumes are likely - but the actual existence or location of any given call is, for all intents and purposes, random. <<< The chaos theory holds that these " random " events have order and can be understood, given the values of an infinite number of variables. If I can predict where higher call volumes are likely, I make the prediction with the values of fewer variables. The more variables I know, the more accurate my prediction. Mike, thanks for the dialogue. Kenny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2008 Report Share Posted June 19, 2008 Kenny - You make a classic mistake - confusing randomness with chaos. When a system is random, the outcomes are not correlated in any fashion. That is, if I roll a six-sided die 100 times, randomness allows for all 100 rolls to come up " 1 " because the results of any subsequent roll aren't reliant on any past roll. When a system is chaotic, future events are directly dependent both on the immediate past event and the entire combinatorial series of past events, a la the Lorenz attractor. The next " motion " of the attractor is bound by the current (last) vector and the prior motion of the series. EMS is random. Although the calls dispatched may seem related and predictable, it's simply not the case. The call from the patient suffering from a TIA isn't related to the call for the patient who was just stung by a bee and is having an allergic reaction any more than the numbers in the addresses are related, the age of the patient's parents are related, or the astrological signs of the paramedics on the trucks are related. When we look at managing and placing public safety resources, we place them where they are most likely to serve the greatest need. In many places that's a simple process that's much aided by population densities (i.e. you get more calls where there are more people) or special populations (you're more likely to get a call at a nursing home because of the additional needs of those patients). But even with all of that information, the actual calls are still random. The Santa Fe Institute has a good explanation of this at <http://www.santafe.edu/~gmk/MFGB/node2.html>. From that site: " The game of Roulette is an interesting example that might illustrate the distinction between random and chaotic systems: If we study the statistics of the outcome of repeated games, then we can see that the sequence of numbers is completely random. That led Einstein to remark: ``The only way to win money in Roulette is to steal it from the bank.'' On the other hand we know the mechanics of the ball and the wheel very well and if we could somehow measure the initial conditions for the ball/wheel system, we might be able to make a short term predict ion of the outcome. " What we've done with EMS is fooled ourselves into believing that our short term accuracy somehow relates to our long-term prospects. In reality, it's just a random string of 1's on our dice rolls... Mike > > Subject: Chaotic rebuttal > To: texasems-l > Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 9:24 PM > >>> That's not actually correct. <<< > > Your narrative appears to support my simple explanation. > > With respect to chaos, I don't think our > overly-simplistic > explanations are expansively dissimilar. > > > >>> . . . you can't predict with any certainty > whether a particular > element exists or has a given value. <<< > > With extrapolation of chaos, it is theoretically possible > to predict > those events and characteristics with absolute certainty; > it only > requires values for an infinite number of variables which > practically, of course, is impossible. > > > >>> The problem with EMS is that the number of > variables is much, > much too high to be able to compute. You would have to be > able to > know far too many details . . . <<< > > This is what I said. > > > >>> You can predict where higher call volumes are > likely (population > centers, certain communities, etc.) or when higher call > volumes are > likely - but the actual existence or location of any given > call is, > for all intents and purposes, random. <<< > > The chaos theory holds that these " random " events > have order and can > be understood, given the values of an infinite number of > variables. > If I can predict where higher call volumes are likely, I > make the > prediction with the values of fewer variables. The more > variables I > know, the more accurate my prediction. > > Mike, thanks for the dialogue. > > Kenny > > > ------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2008 Report Share Posted June 19, 2008 >>> You make a classic mistake - confusing randomness with chaos. <<< Thanks, but I know the difference between randomness and chaos. >>> EMS is random. <<< I am not disagreeing (or supporting) your position. What I am suggesting is that my experience demonstrates that events I formerly believed to be completely random turned out not be random at all. I make room for the possibility that the distribution of ambulance responses may not be as completely random as many people believe. I once believed (because I was taught) getting cardiac arrest patients intubated was critical to their short-term survival. Data that is more recent suggests otherwise. I am always willing to reconsider my position (regardless of " correct " I think I am). Thanks for the website. It is very interesting. Kenny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.