Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the Economics-and-science-may-be-related-after-all dept.

The Experts Keep Getting the US Economy Wrong - and of course they do: economics is a mushy, highly politicized bag of conjecture. And, even if economists could somehow collect unbiased data, process it objectively, and report their analysis without fear of being replaced if they present an unpopular result, the "hard" scientists continue to tear away at the foundations of reality with a proof that Wigner was right about his friend after all: there are irreconcilable realities at the foundations of particle physics, we're just living in a probabilistic consensus above the paradoxes. At least, for a little while.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by black6host on Sunday March 17 2019, @05:15AM (8 children)

    by black6host (3827) on Sunday March 17 2019, @05:15AM (#815697) Journal

    Best Summary Evar!!!!!

    My god, I read the summary, looked at the article and went: WTF? Ok, economics is hard. Ask any politician. And yes, we're tearing apart all that we need to survive, long term. So then, I'm reading about Wigner to tie it all together. I'm lost...

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Arik on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:42AM (7 children)

      by Arik (4543) on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:42AM (#815730) Journal
      "Ok, economics is hard.  Ask any politician."

      A politician is not an economist - but yes, despite that, apropos.

      The issue isn't economics. This is fairly well understood, Mises was basically right, Hayek even moreso; Keynes was mostly speaking the lies that power found attractive and useful, which is why you've certainly heard of him and probably not heard of Mises.

      What's hard is resisting the political forces that demand, constantly, that political power distort economic reality to the benefit of the politically powerful.

      Doing this makes us all poorer in the long run, but as Keynes said, in the long run, we're all dead. Society is a big abstraction that can only act through individuals. And individuals always have an interest in flattering power, in flattering wealth, in protecting powerful patrons and donors.

      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Sunday March 17 2019, @03:58PM (6 children)

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 17 2019, @03:58PM (#815889) Journal

        Sorry, but no.

        Economics is like weather forecasting in that it's dominated by chaotic variables, and only short term predictions are viable. Well, actually that's true for parts of economics. Other parts are more like climate, in that you can model long term trends with fair accuracy. Unfortunately, economics is even more under the thumb of politicians that climate forecasting. (Climate forecasting is ONLY under the thumb of politicians *because* it has economic implication.) Because of this no economic model has been validated. *NONE*. It's not that it's impossible in principle, though high accuracy and long term detailed predictions are probably impossible, but that nobody in control wants the results. (Sometimes they just don't want anyone else to see the results, but when it comes to creating good models, that has the same effect.)

        So you can claim that "Mises was basically right, Hayek even moreso", but this has never been proven. It's also never been disproven. And being "basically right" wouldn't be sufficient to overcome the underlying chaos. You'd need to be right in fine detail, and even then it would be dubious. (You might be able to calculate the attractors and the paths between them, but you couldn't predict which path would be taken.)

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @07:08PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @07:08PM (#816573)

          if you hear from someone those things about hayek or mises you can stop listening and start thinking of unicorns. it's quite more productive

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 21 2019, @12:41PM (4 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 21 2019, @12:41PM (#817888)

          You're skirting Heisenberg in all of this: _iff_ an accurate economic model were developed, proven and published, it would fundamentally change the economics which it predicts because lots of (but certainly not all) people would start acting on the accurate information which it provides.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:58PM (3 children)

            by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:58PM (#818084) Journal

            That's true too. But if the information were publicly available, then I think the feedback could, in principle, and within limits, be figured in. Of course there's a big difference between "in principle" and "in practice".

            --
            Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 22 2019, @12:08PM (2 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday March 22 2019, @12:08PM (#818365)

              I think one of the major impediments to accurate economic modeling is the obfuscation, secret hoarding, and distortion of the input data by those who hope to gain benefit for themselves at the expense of others.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday March 22 2019, @06:10PM (1 child)

                by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 22 2019, @06:10PM (#818504) Journal

                That's a real problem, but I don't think the modeling is currently good enough that that isn't lost in the noise level.

                --
                Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 23 2019, @01:05AM

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday March 23 2019, @01:05AM (#818643)

                  "Big Data" should, soon, provide sufficient source data for accurate modeling, if anyone can manage to tap a sufficiently large, accurate, and unbiased subset of it. But, yeah, most of the big data projects I've had any contact with resemble a small group of ants who have wandered away from the nest and stepped into a firehose outlet.

                  --
                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @05:56AM (4 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 17 2019, @05:56AM (#815710) Journal
    I don't get why these disparate topics were mashed together. Economics isn't ever going to be accurate enough at the macroeconomics scale that one will need to take into account quantum mechanics. And neither has anything to do with more eco-hysteria from the UN.

    Let's look at each one in turn.

    economics is a mushy, highly politicized bag of conjecture

    There's a bunch of models that have a reasonable basis on observation (for example the "law" of supply and demand for a simple example). But they don't give the right answer for those who have a reasonable "fear of being replaced if they present an unpopular result". To treat conflict of interest as if economics were fundamentally broken misses the point. If quantum mechanics, the next in line, had similar stakes at hand where huge wealth and political power depended on coming up with an appropriately spun QM prediction, we would see the same problems. As to the article on the consistently erroneous economic predictions, so what? I would expect consistent error from economists just like it happened in the Great Depression. Rationalizing government policies and selling happy stories is a common role of economists. The theories of economics aren't broken just because the scientific discourse is swamped by the usual charlatans and entrails readers. Just don't listen to those people.

    Moving on, the paradox is only a paradox in certain QM theories. Once one has a theory that doesn't objectively disentangle systems just because one party made an observation, this paradox goes away. A QM observation has a lot of subjectivity to it - even an observation of another observation.

    Then we get to the last thing, a report by some UN body that claims the ecological foundations of society are in peril. I think this illustrates the clueless nature of the report:

    The authors say that with unprecedented action on a global scale -- including drastically cutting carbon emissions, improving water management and reducing pollution -- humans can achieve a future with less poverty and hunger while preserving the environment. But our window for action is closing fast. If we continue business as usual, the authors warn, we can expect:

    • Millions of premature deaths caused by air pollution across large swaths of Asia, the Middle East and Africa by the middle of this century.
    • The continuation of a major species extinction event, impairing Earth's capacity to meet human food and resource needs.
    • Freshwater pollutants making antimicrobial-resistant infections a major cause of death by 2050.

    First thing missed is that "business as usual" is unprecedented action on a global scale already. Second, the three problems mentioned have already been massively mitigated in the developed world, which while it isn't the whole world is still roughly a sixth of the world. I think we can figure out how to extend a solution to the rest of humanity when we already have it working on a slightly smaller scale. In other words, we already have solved the problems of the report on a slightly smaller scale.

    One wonders why the report doesn't note that.

    But it is people -- politicians, business leaders and members of the public -- who in many cases, continue to stand in the way of achieving those goals.

    Surely, one can be forgiven for wondering why we're getting this line of nonsense when developed world people in question achieved those goals rather than "continue to stand in the way". It's a cool story, bro, but it has nothing to do with reality.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:08AM (2 children)

      by vux984 (5045) on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:08AM (#815713)

      "it has nothing to do with reality."

      That just means your observing reality wrong.

      ;)

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @11:40AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @11:40AM (#815799)

        "That just means your observing reality wrong."

        When it comes to khallow, that's the zeroth rule of the tautology club.
        Let's note that his head deep in his ass is not conducive to a proper observation of reality.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:05PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:05PM (#815898) Journal

      Macroeconomics will never be as accurate as chess playing, but it could, in principle, be as accurate as climate forecasting. I.e., no detailed forecasts, but "summer will come after winter", and "this winter in this location will be ABOUT x% worse than last year". It's got the same underlying chaos, and domination by exogenous factors. I don't think it could ever take the actions of politicians into account, however. But it could predict, e.g., that when unemployment is high a candidate running of xenophobia will do well. Note, however, how it's needed to move well outside the realm of classical economics to predict that kind of thing.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:20AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:20AM (#815720)

    The fact that they still employ Paul Krugman, particularly after his ridiculous election night predictions, is evidence enough that the NYT isn't willing (able?) to offer anything legit about economics. They also still have that openly racist editor Sarah Jeong.

    If the NYT ever says anything positive about Trump, maybe that can be trusted. In other words, the NYT can't ever be trusted.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:16PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:16PM (#815906) Journal

      Sorry, but neither political predictions nor racism say anything about the quality of the economics predictions.

      I'll agree that the NYT economics predictions are political and unreliable, but only as the same time as I say that about everyone else making economic predictions. (Well, there may be an exception, since I don't follow that stuff. But I have strong doubts. Read "A Random Walk down Wall Street".)

      OTOH, some large trends are readily noticeable, and officially denied. E.g., increasingly power is moving away from locally controlled business and into centrally controlled businesses. More jobs are being eliminated, and the ones that aren't being eliminated are being deskilled preparatory to either automating them or off-shoring them. Etc. I also don't believe the unemployment rate has actually decreased. That's probably an artifact of how they choose to define it. If someone remains unemployed for awhile, they stop counting them as unemployed. So when the rate of increasing unemployment slows, the pool that hasn't been unemployed too long to count decreases. And an engineer working as a waiter counts as employed in their numbers...but that isn't paying off his student loan.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:22AM (12 children)

    by Snotnose (1623) on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:22AM (#815723)

    The authors say that with unprecedented action on a global scale -- including drastically cutting carbon emissions, improving water management and reducing pollution -- humans can achieve a future with less poverty and hunger while preserving the environment.

    Alternatively, maybe have fewer people?

    --
    Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:44AM (6 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:44AM (#815732) Journal

      Alternatively, maybe have fewer people?

      Like in the developed world? Without immigration every developed world country would have a negative growth rate. Last I heard, third generation immigrants had fertility down to below replacement.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:04PM (5 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:04PM (#817897)

        Without immigration every developed world country would have a negative growth rate.

        Keep telling yourself that. Now, compare modern day Africa's access to technology and relative level of development to late 18th century Europe, around the time when Malthus was predicting doom and gloom for them. I think modern Africa is FAR ahead, as is most of the ersatz 3rd world. All that "undeveloped" means is relatively behind, we're all much farther ahead than we were 100 years ago.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:34PM (4 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:34PM (#817909) Journal

          Without immigration every developed world country would have a negative growth rate.

          Keep telling yourself that.

          Why should I keep telling myself that when I already know it in the first place? I don't see the need. It's other people who apparently need to learn that the developed world has solved the problem of exponential population growth.

          Now, compare modern day Africa's access to technology and relative level of development to late 18th century Europe, around the time when Malthus was predicting doom and gloom for them. I think modern Africa is FAR ahead, as is most of the ersatz 3rd world. All that "undeveloped" means is relatively behind, we're all much farther ahead than we were 100 years ago.

          And in another 100 years, they'll be much further ahead than they are now. In my view everything except possibly a few holdouts will have stable or negative population growth at that point. Malthus won't be a thing by then.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:52PM (3 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:52PM (#817920)

            And in another 100 years, they'll be much further ahead than they are now.

            Whoosh.

            100 years ago, nobody had cooling in their homes. Portable wireless communication was about as common as quantum computers are today. Chlorination of municipal drinking water had barely started. Access to information was via library and university.

            If things continue as they have been, in another 100 years, they (the so-called undeveloped world) will be much further ahead than WE (the so-called developed world) are now.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 21 2019, @02:15PM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 21 2019, @02:15PM (#817934) Journal

              If things continue as they have been, in another 100 years, they (the so-called undeveloped world) will be much further ahead than WE (the so-called developed world) are now.

              I've made similar predictions myself. My view is that by 2100, most of the world will be better off than Norway is now.

              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:15PM (1 child)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:15PM (#818012)

                My view is that by 2100, most of the world will be better off than Norway is now.

                Keep telling yourself that. Which means: you may be repeating it for all to read, but the only one who is getting convinced by your words is you.

                If - big if - a bunch of unlikely (according to history) things go very very right, and a bunch of likely (according to history) things do not go very very wrong, then your view could happen.

                My view of 2100 is 80+ years in the future - looking at today from 1939, the state of most of the world is just about impossible to have been predicted in March of 1939.

                There are some things that have a whole lot more momentum today than 1939. 3.3x population growth over those 80 years, as opposed to ~2x over the previous 80 years probably being the most significant for the shape of the future. By any measure, we are much closer to the carrying capacity of the planet now, and my view is that, regardless of technological innovations that may increase the carrying capacity, temporarily like desert irrigation with non-renewable water supplies, or permanently like cheap clean power, we are going to continue to squeeze the carrying capacity of the planet until political stability breaks down and sets us back into a global dark age with a significant standard of living regression, and associated population decline, for most of the population. Will that happen by 2100? 2200? 2050? I'd put a bell curve somewhere around 2150, with 1SD placed at 2100.

                But, that's just my crystal ball - equally as accurate as yours.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:54PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:54PM (#818081) Journal

                  Keep telling yourself that.

                  Again, what would be the point of the exercise?

                  Which means: you may be repeating it for all to read, but the only one who is getting convinced by your words is you.

                  Unless, of course, you happen to be wrong again.

                  My view of 2100 is 80+ years in the future - looking at today from 1939, the state of most of the world is just about impossible to have been predicted in March of 1939.

                  What would be impossible about it?

                  3.3x population growth over those 80 years, as opposed to ~2x over the previous 80 years probably being the most significant for the shape of the future.

                  And that happened. Meanwhile, we're already seeing that the population isn't going to do that again. I'll note also that the world is much more stable than it was in 1939.

                  By any measure, we are much closer to the carrying capacity of the planet now, and my view is that, regardless of technological innovations that may increase the carrying capacity, temporarily like desert irrigation with non-renewable water supplies, or permanently like cheap clean power, we are going to continue to squeeze the carrying capacity of the planet until political stability breaks down and sets us back into a global dark age with a significant standard of living regression, and associated population decline, for most of the population.

                  Unless, of course, that doesn't happen.

                  Will that happen by 2100? 2200? 2050?

                  Why? As I noted before, there's the increasing wealth of the world which in turn means increased ability to feed oneselves and lower human fertility.

                  But, that's just my crystal ball - equally as accurate as yours.

                  That's an interesting opinion. Would be a shame if the future were to do something to it.

    • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:22PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:22PM (#815913)

      Your idea would directly lead to more poverty. Growth is the only thing holding the whole enchilada together right now. You do not think the fed keeps inflation positive because they hate us?

      A recession has never created jobs only destroyed them. That is exactly what you are calling for and a large decrease in population would do. Do not think so? How long did it take Europe, Japan, and China to recover from WW2? Still do not think so? Let me put it into economic terms. Less people leads to less consumption leads to higher prices leads to lower jobs leads to more poverty. There in fact would be FEWER jobs to go around. Not more. Because demand for goods would be lower. Tax incomes would also be down so we could not pay for more social programs as we have less sales of items.

      If you do not like people that is fine. But perhaps you could think a little bit ahead what your off the cuff idea would do?

      Economics is a 'squishy' science because most of the models are very simplistic. But you can create very logical thought chains out of the ideas. Most people stop at step one and never beyond that. Pretty much everything after step 2 seems to suck for everyone involved.

      • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:53PM (1 child)

        by acid andy (1683) on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:53PM (#816018) Homepage Journal

        Let me put it into economic terms. Less people leads to less consumption leads to higher prices

        Actually, fewer people leads to demand for lower quantities (less consumption) of a product which normally requires lowering the prices to recover some of the demand.

        leads to lower jobs leads to more poverty. There in fact would be FEWER jobs to go around. Not more. Because demand for goods would be lower.

        Yes that's right because the companies will downsize, cutting production levels and staff numbers, to maintain profitability in the face of lower demand. Luckily, though, fewer jobs doesn't necessarily mean greater unemployment because the population has fallen as well (the exact balance will depend on how many customers each employee effectively serves).

        Tax incomes would also be down so we could not pay for more social programs as we have less sales of items.

        But there's a smaller population so less money is needed for social benefits.

        Economies can be built around very small populations and they don't have to rely on infinite growth. What is true though is that an enormous adjustment would be needed to the current economic models which isn't something that can happen instantaneously or likely without assistance.

        --
        If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 21 2019, @12:58PM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 21 2019, @12:58PM (#817895)

          People love success stories, and many of the recent ultra wealthy riches from rags stories come from people who were in the right place at the right time to capitalize on massive growth. The fact that we've had massive sustained growth since WWII only reinforces this.

          Unfortunately, I think a lot of the people presently in power (meaning: holding the money), got there through lucky strikes in a rapidly growing economy, and I believe that they are endeavoring to continue that growing economy so that their (specific, genetically related inheritors of their estates) children can continue to enjoy the kind of wealth and power that they have come to know. I think most, not all, but certainly a majority, of them are blind to the degree which luck played into their good fortunes.

          Personally, I think most of us should listen to the late Jim Morrison and "get our kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames."

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:36PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:36PM (#817911) Journal

        Your idea would directly lead to more poverty.

        Like it has in the developed world? Think about it.

        Growth is the only thing holding the whole enchilada together right now.

        Growth != population growth. There's plenty of ways to grow, such as increasing human lifespan, that don't require more people.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:27PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:27PM (#815918) Journal

      It's not an either/or, but rather a both/and. India was already burning off it's forests for kindling faster than they were regrowing.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Bot on Sunday March 17 2019, @10:50AM (1 child)

    by Bot (3902) on Sunday March 17 2019, @10:50AM (#815781) Journal

    I dunno why people derive philosophical statements about reality from science.
    Reality behaves differently at macroscopic and quantum scales? ok, then your macroscopic models of a single objective reality do not work, why should they, the universe does not care about your models. Ditto for reducing the universe into a series of equations and then wondering why they are simpler for 435 dimensions or why time doesn't flow both ways, who says that the language the universe is coded in is completely declarative like equations are?

    The double slit experiment points at lazy evaluation. This experiment points at the result of lazy evaluation being stored locally, or not at all.
    Does this negates reality? What does it even mean? Reality is real to me as a videogame world is real to the videogame character as a board game is real to the pieces of the board.
    Tell a gamer his defeat in a match isn't real because "IN REALITY it's all electrons in a circuit". The gamer will spit his mountain dew in your face. AND HE IS RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG. His defeat is real in the abstraction of matches, and it is also eternal. Unlike your theories, apparently.

    Stop trying to ascertain how things are from the inside, you losers. Just model it and leave philosophers to ruminate their politically useful platitudes about it so they can sell ebooks. To each his own.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 17 2019, @11:44AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 17 2019, @11:44AM (#815802) Journal

      I'm too lazy

      I don't believe you.
      See? Quite an amount of rambling for a lazy bot.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @02:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @02:18PM (#815843)

    From my quote file: "An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today." (Laurence J. Peter)

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by captain normal on Sunday March 17 2019, @05:24PM (1 child)

    by captain normal (2205) on Sunday March 17 2019, @05:24PM (#815958)

    Why am I reminded of this parable? Seems that trying to find coherence in the posting on S/N, where people seem ready to come to blows over what they think is obvious, may be as futile as Sisyphus' task.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant [wikipedia.org]

    --
    When life isn't going right, go left.
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 21 2019, @12:52PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 21 2019, @12:52PM (#817890)

      I do like the smallish community on SN for its relative predictability... who will rise to which bait, what position they inevitably fall behind. Occasionally you can even tease out the reasoning behind the dogma, if there is any.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 2) by ants_in_pants on Monday March 18 2019, @03:01AM (9 children)

    by ants_in_pants (6665) on Monday March 18 2019, @03:01AM (#816227)

    I mean, quantum effects don't really manifest in macro-scale physical situations, at least the probability of something macro-scale(like economics) displaying non-deterministic behavior is ridiculously small. The real problem is economics itself: economists handwave most of the math that they base everything off of, while claiming mathematical certainty of their results.

    --
    -Love, ants_in_pants
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 21 2019, @12:49PM (8 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 21 2019, @12:49PM (#817889)

      quantum effects don't really manifest in macro-scale physical situations

      Or, do they? To skim Douglas Adams' work: just because something is nearly infinitely improbable doesn't mean that it never happens... it does mean that sitting around waiting for it to happen is nearly infinitely futile, but these things can and do happen, almost always to people who are not expecting them.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by ants_in_pants on Thursday March 21 2019, @10:33PM (7 children)

        by ants_in_pants (6665) on Thursday March 21 2019, @10:33PM (#818197)

        sure, but if we're trying to make real-world predictions we can't dwell on random outliers like that. It's like... sure, your dog could turn into a giraffe, but are you going to ever consider that when going out to buy dog food?

        --
        -Love, ants_in_pants
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 22 2019, @12:05PM (6 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday March 22 2019, @12:05PM (#818364)

          Of course my dog has never turned into a giraffe - that's impossible, because I don't have a dog.

          On the other hand, in the 1.6 billion seconds I've been alive I do believe I have experienced at least a couple of brief events that would seem to register in the one-in-a-billion improbability scale. Then, the question becomes: are these "hand of God" moments, or just really unlikely random occurrences? I'm not sure that the answer to that matters, since the legend of God has clearly painted a picture of an ambivalent being who throws improbable events in both good and bad directions.

          Either way, I have grown to really dislike the one-size-fits-all mentality that seems to dominate our laws and culture, and its near complete disregard for the welfare and even rights of outliers.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 2) by ants_in_pants on Friday March 22 2019, @06:41PM (5 children)

            by ants_in_pants (6665) on Friday March 22 2019, @06:41PM (#818519)

            That still has nothing to do with quantum stuff. I don't think you realize just how improbable it is that nondeterminism would manifest at a macro-scale. Not one in a billion, more like one in 10^100.

            It's one thing for events to feel random or unlikely, it's another for them to actually not follow the basic laws of causality which we take for granted here in the macro-world.

            --
            -Love, ants_in_pants
            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 23 2019, @01:01AM (4 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday March 23 2019, @01:01AM (#818642)

              Not really. I'd put the odds of someone else's dog suddenly morphing into a giraffe far higher, possibly 10^250 - like: not going to happen to any dog-like animal on any planet at any time in a million timelines of this universe, but maybe in the million and 1th timeline: dog-like animals might be genetically similar enough to giraffe-like animals that a subtle tweak of their genes might cause them to be susceptible to extremely rare mutations that can propagate throughout their body and cause them to morph...

              Similarly, I think the kinds of quantum weirdness that might manifest on the order of billions of course would not be a dog wholesale turning into a giraffe, nor a missile morphing into a talking bowl of petunias (although, as improbability approaches infinity...), but more "butterfly effect" kinds of things, like inexplicable actions taken by people, triggered by brain activity doing something that it has essentially no reason to be doing, but nevertheless it does it. Now, is that just chemical stochastic randomness in the neurotransmitters and receptors, or can that stochastic randomness be influenced into some 8+SD from the mean results by an equally improbable stackup of improbabilities at a quantum level? Is there really any difference? It sounds like the kind of question that might be better pondered with increased neurotransmitter activity such as can be induced with lysergic acid diethylamide. Where's Andy?

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by acid andy on Friday March 29 2019, @01:21AM (3 children)

                by acid andy (1683) on Friday March 29 2019, @01:21AM (#821616) Homepage Journal

                Where's Andy?

                I was away for a bit, but I'm here now. Coffee and chocolate will have to suffice for the increased neurotransmitter activity here.

                Now, is that just chemical stochastic randomness in the neurotransmitters and receptors, or can that stochastic randomness be influenced into some 8+SD from the mean results by an equally improbable stackup of improbabilities at a quantum level?

                We have to be careful what we mean by "random". Randomness introduced above the quantum level would really be deterministic, wouldn't it? It's just the complexity of it that makes it hard or impossible to build a model to predict the outcome. Unusual outcomes is what you were interested in. The human brain is certainly complex and chaotic enough to at least be capable of momentarily inducing huge deviations from the mean behavior, although it's arguable how truly random any of these outliers are--we can usually start to point to causes.

                Is there really any difference?

                I don't think there is a meaningful difference, so long as the human's behavioral outcome is the same and they don't feel any different on the inside. The brain's awfully good at constructing ad hoc justifications for what it does. It starts to matter if the randomness provides a mechanism for either granting or attenuating free will because then it can either increase or reduce the person's freedom. We discussed these issues [soylentnews.org] a fair bit before [soylentnews.org].

                Also, I'll quote my comment here [soylentnews.org] as it's at least tangentially relevant:

                I don't honestly know to what degree [the effects of chaos theory apply] to brain states. Maybe quantum randomness does change the outcome of some decisions. I don't know. I do think that humans are rather predictable and the more you know about their neurology, the better your predictions can get (it's a bit like weather forecasting). What matters for the purposes of the original discussion is whether it allows us to set bounds on someone's behavior such that we can answer whether or not they could suddenly change their patterns of behavior to drag themselves out of a life of poverty. I still submit that some can but others simply cannot.

                [...]even if we do have free will in the fullest sense, people's behavior generally still does have bounds. A chaotic system still has limits. That's why we don't see millions of people doing such unpredictable and spontaneous things as smearing themselves with custard and hopping on one leg along the street shouting ancient Greek poetry. A bad philosopher might do such a thing simply to attempt prove a point about their free will but in that case there's a clear motive present i.e. an obvious cause (and likely even one that can be explained without invoking non-determinism). People remain true to the boundaries of their own character. Even an actor does -- acting is part of their character too. Someone's character can change occasionally but that's usually down to some kind of change in their environment.

                Let me know if you seek more pondering, Joe!

                --
                If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
                • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 29 2019, @01:49AM (2 children)

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday March 29 2019, @01:49AM (#821622)

                  It's late, but one interesting thought did arise:

                  If stochastic randomness has its origins in quantum randomness, agreed: who really cares? (Nobody should.)

                  On the other hand, if randomness in the brain can be influenced away from stochastic bell curves and into some kind of otherwise improbable synchrony with other brains or objects based on quantum entanglement... that might be very interesting.

                  --
                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
                  • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday March 29 2019, @02:12AM (1 child)

                    by acid andy (1683) on Friday March 29 2019, @02:12AM (#821629) Homepage Journal

                    It certainly would be, but what might give rise to that entanglement? Might sex or parenthood be sufficient?

                    --
                    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 29 2019, @01:07PM

                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday March 29 2019, @01:07PM (#821776)

                      Sex, parenthood, eating food from the same sources, living under the influence of the same electromagnetic fields, lots of possibilities.

                      Each additional understanding of "random" takes away another bit of its God-like control of fate.

                      --
                      🌻🌻 [google.com]
(1)