The Ludic Fallacy consists in the error that probability can be calculated on unclosed systems, whereas outliers are of greater influence on consequences that change state than are regularities that maintain state. In other words, there are very few conditions under which dice are a model for probability, and the ratio of influence (change) is a log of the tail. Dice are closed systems. There are no outliers. Whereas in all other categories (real world) we are almost always measuring variations in a norm, not possible outliers – which although rare, are far more influential than the regularities we measure. In other words, we get what we measure but what we measure is largely unimportant, because it’s obvious and not influential. What we don’t measure is that which is not obvious and rare, but influential. When we predict the future we depend upon regularities. but if regularities exist then there is no profit to be made. it is from outliers that profits are made. This is a via negativa strategy, just as is falsification. Or stated otherwise, the unimaginable and improbable is more influential than the imaginable and probable. This is – reductio version – the whole point of Taleb’s work. And Taleb is, even if he doesn’t succeed, the counter to Keynesian Probabilism, the same way I am counter to Marxist pseudoscience.
Source: Original Site Post
-
A Little Deeper Understanding of The Ludic Fallacy and Why I Rarely Use Any Variation on “probable”.
The Ludic Fallacy consists in the error that probability can be calculated on unclosed systems, whereas outliers are of greater influence on consequences that change state than are regularities that maintain state. In other words, there are very few conditions under which dice are a model for probability, and the ratio of influence (change) is a log of the tail. Dice are closed systems. There are no outliers. Whereas in all other categories (real world) we are almost always measuring variations in a norm, not possible outliers – which although rare, are far more influential than the regularities we measure. In other words, we get what we measure but what we measure is largely unimportant, because it’s obvious and not influential. What we don’t measure is that which is not obvious and rare, but influential. When we predict the future we depend upon regularities. but if regularities exist then there is no profit to be made. it is from outliers that profits are made. This is a via negativa strategy, just as is falsification. Or stated otherwise, the unimaginable and improbable is more influential than the imaginable and probable. This is – reductio version – the whole point of Taleb’s work. And Taleb is, even if he doesn’t succeed, the counter to Keynesian Probabilism, the same way I am counter to Marxist pseudoscience.
-
The Process of Cognitive Development
|Cognition| Analogistic > Theoretical > Axiomatic > Operational by Bill Joslin So the process of cognitive development and concept creation would follow this spectrum. 1) Analogistic : abductive, fictional, imaginary, free association, imaginable – hypothesis creation. 2) Theoretical – inductive, narrative, possible, hypothesis development 3) Axiomatic – deductive, descriptive, deterministic, testable, probable, provable law proposal 4) Operational – descriptive, directive, decidable, actionable, warrant able, testable, falsifiable – creation(discovery) of law A (spectrum) process of constant disambiguation leading to more effective action (increases in agency) – which is why some may get stuck at one position and then assert each as separate discrete entities which are opposed to each other (a type of cherry picking) versus steps toward disambiguation (I think you did it Bill Joslin …. damn!) 😉
-
The Process of Cognitive Development
|Cognition| Analogistic > Theoretical > Axiomatic > Operational by Bill Joslin So the process of cognitive development and concept creation would follow this spectrum. 1) Analogistic : abductive, fictional, imaginary, free association, imaginable – hypothesis creation. 2) Theoretical – inductive, narrative, possible, hypothesis development 3) Axiomatic – deductive, descriptive, deterministic, testable, probable, provable law proposal 4) Operational – descriptive, directive, decidable, actionable, warrant able, testable, falsifiable – creation(discovery) of law A (spectrum) process of constant disambiguation leading to more effective action (increases in agency) – which is why some may get stuck at one position and then assert each as separate discrete entities which are opposed to each other (a type of cherry picking) versus steps toward disambiguation (I think you did it Bill Joslin …. damn!) 😉
-
Any Sufficiently Complex Theory Will Be Indistinguishable from Magic
—“Most people won’t understand the basis for [the Propertarian] legal theory, and it will need explanation in mythological terms. To the people who require this form of explanation it will essentially be a religion.”– Eric Orwoll You know, sometimes you just need someone to reframe it for you. Thanks Eric. That’s smart. You could ahve told me that three years ago and saved me six months… lol
-
Any Sufficiently Complex Theory Will Be Indistinguishable from Magic
—“Most people won’t understand the basis for [the Propertarian] legal theory, and it will need explanation in mythological terms. To the people who require this form of explanation it will essentially be a religion.”– Eric Orwoll You know, sometimes you just need someone to reframe it for you. Thanks Eric. That’s smart. You could ahve told me that three years ago and saved me six months… lol
-
Abrahamism: The Religions of The Enemy.
by Alex Macleod –“You cannot have an enemy be the core of your culture.”– To put it very simplistically isn’t that what Judaism (goyim), Mohamedism (unbelievers) and Christianity (the devil) have? (Curt: Exactly. The abrahamic religions are the semitic pastoralist revolt against the agrarian metal workers. Thus explains the invention of organized religion as a resistance movement against transcendence [property].)
-
Abrahamism: The Religions of The Enemy.
by Alex Macleod –“You cannot have an enemy be the core of your culture.”– To put it very simplistically isn’t that what Judaism (goyim), Mohamedism (unbelievers) and Christianity (the devil) have? (Curt: Exactly. The abrahamic religions are the semitic pastoralist revolt against the agrarian metal workers. Thus explains the invention of organized religion as a resistance movement against transcendence [property].)
-
Markets Serve the Demands of Complexity
by Jim Leis So as a very simple example, complexity structurally demands trial. And also innately breaks up large populations in preference for smaller ones; large ant hills and wolf packs split at certain sizes. Actually, complexity demands it. So, on a very base level, globalism is too hierarchical and statist for complexity. Globalism, socialism, communism, will never work because it drives complexity out of a society. Which will kill it. Put another way, a king’s power is in upholding the rule of law. If he amasses too much power, regulating business, property, etc., he relegates his fellow citizens to robots and kills complexity, and then kills society.
-
Markets Serve the Demands of Complexity
by Jim Leis So as a very simple example, complexity structurally demands trial. And also innately breaks up large populations in preference for smaller ones; large ant hills and wolf packs split at certain sizes. Actually, complexity demands it. So, on a very base level, globalism is too hierarchical and statist for complexity. Globalism, socialism, communism, will never work because it drives complexity out of a society. Which will kill it. Put another way, a king’s power is in upholding the rule of law. If he amasses too much power, regulating business, property, etc., he relegates his fellow citizens to robots and kills complexity, and then kills society.