:lolzero margin said:Hey sean you trying to guide this thread? If so it seems the antithesis of what it's all about.
It matters, definitely. Not saying we're gonna change the world, but if this sort of critical thinking is encouraged more and more, then yes, I think it could be a big game-changer.zero margin said:Oh I'm all about outside the box thinking, just making sure you're on the level. I'm following and I know what I say influences but does it matter? I mean were a couple of random dudes on a message board (albeit great) so who knows what get's absorbed into the conscience, oh I hear you.
Seanspeed said:It matters, definitely. Not saying we're gonna change the world, but if this sort of critical thinking is encouraged more and more, then yes, I think it could be a big game-changer.
Seanspeed said:Agreeing with me, eh?
Thats no fun! :lol
I dont believe that at all. Things can work out if you work hard to make it happen, and even then, its no guarantee. Some people are taken care of, and dont need to work so hard, but most of us do.zero margin said:Exactly. I guess I'm also of the mind things work out for the best. Regardless.
EDIT - That does not mean I think things are the best they can be.
Damn you man, stop with the mind games. You edited your post! Don't you know that there are now two versions of this thread running in parallel, a split reality based on how the thread could have been?Seanspeed said:Whoops!
The most plausible alternative was local hidden variables.The_Technomancer said:Damn, I'm not sure if any of us have the physics for that. I mean, I'm pretty sure that there's something in the math that dictates true randomness, or else it just doesn't work, but I can't tell you 100%
Gaborn said:As others have said it's all about how good your data is. There's a guy named Bruce Bueno de Mesquita that has actually developed a program that can make predictions about elections and such with about 90% accuracy for example:
Still, the computer model's predictions are ultimately only as good as the assumptions it is given to work with.
harriet the spy said:This article is utter nonsense, as is this guy's 'research'.
Gaborn said:Edit: I don't think that's quite fair. All he's basically doing is inputting all of the "players" in a given situation and using scaled models of their tendencies, putting them together and then using that to calculate a given most likely outcome. He's not claiming that he's always going to be right, and there has been a TON of media sensationalism around him (calling him the "next Nostradamus" for example), but this is just basically applying a statistical model to human behavior, which can't (and doesn't) claim to be perfect, but has so far been pretty far above average. As he points out repeatedly his models are only as good as the assumptions he makes on input (and the article mentions he gets advice on the input from multiple analysts of his chosen subject matter to present the "best" picture possible). His methodology is never going to be "perfect" because there's always a chance for a complete unknown or random factor to change a situation, but denying outright that his model has worked in the past isn't fair at all.
harriet the spy said:Game theory is an interesting subject, as is rational choice theory and all that.
there are a few problems though:
a) People don't behave rationally.
b) As you mention, we don't have the right/good data for those models. it is a huge fucking caveat. It's like trying to design the wing of a plane without knowing any of the coefficients of the fluid you're traveling in, and come up with mostly magical numbers, and hope the goddamn thing flies.
c) No model except the absolute simplest ones can be 'solved' on a computer. He may impress journalists when he says 'i plug in the number, and here goes!', but computing an equilibrium is extremely computationally heavy. _Extremely_ so. His models have to be utterly simplistic representation of reality.
In its simplest form the model works like this. First, Bueno de Mesquita decides what question to ask - for example, will Iran build a nuclear warhead. He then compiles a list of everybody who might influence that decision, and assigns each of them a value from 1 to an arbitrary number, say 100, in each of four categories: what outcome they want; how important they think the issue is; how determined they are to reach agreement; and how much influence they have.
At that point, the "negotiations" begin. Say there are five players, A, B, C, D and E. To arrive at a result, every player is paired with every other and their positions compared. When A is paired with B, for example, A must decide whether to support or resist the central proposal ("Iran should build a nuclear weapon") or offer a counter-proposal, taking into account B's position and the likelihood of getting C, D or E's support. B either agrees, negotiates or bullies in return, all the while taking the positions of the other three players into account. Once every possible combination has been played out, each player sorts through the various proposals or demands they received, and evaluates the credibility of any threats made against them. Players may then shift position accordingly. At the end, the model calculates the group's overall position as a number between 1 and 100. This is taken to be the "result".
When five players are involved there are 120 possible interactions - every player's interaction with every other, in both directions (5 × 4), multiplied by the other three players' positions (3 × 2). But the complexity soon skyrockets. If you jump to 10 players there are 3.6 million potential interactions. A typical predictioneer problem involves 30 to 40 players, although Bueno de Mesquita has tackled problems with more than 200.
d) even when you can solve those models, they will rarely give you an answer of what actually happens. They will give you a number of different possibilites ('equilibrium') and choosing which one is 'right' is pretty much arbitrary**. Given the system he studies, the right answer should most of the time 'no fucking clue', because in all odds everything can happen.
Does it mean it's junk? I don't know. It does not really bring anything conceptually new to the field. He just makes predictions, which may or may not be correct.
I have that British Political science article (which quotes the 90 percent success rate) if you want (I'll pm it to you if you'd like, I don't really know if that's kosher here), and, from a quick read, nothing indicates independent validation of those magical 90% (which btw, should be a dead ringer of a faux-nostradamus). We don't know who validated those besides one random CIA dude (for which there are many potential reasons to distrust his opinion).
90% sounds great, but on what? Ridiculously easy predictions? Hard ones? Is he predicting the weather in ten minutes, or in ten months?
No record of him making those 'interesting' predictions (that list which is given anywhere you read about him) before they actually happened, or before they were about to become obvious, or if just generates gazillions of possible scenario and only pulls the correct ones out of his hat.
Let me amend my statement. it's not necessarily gibberish. But all clues point, imo, to a guy who make much much more grandiose claims than what he actually is able to do , and abusing the credulity of people who can pay for his consulting services and who desperately need a crystal ball (like intelligence people). But i guess that's what all consultants do.
I wouldn't mind as much if he was an academic who wanted to know how predictable real world events are (based on the kind of data he feeds his model), plays around with it, warns that any conclusion has to be taken with the fucking hugest pinch of salt ever, and analyzes the results. I do think game theory is very interesting to understand at a very high level human behavior, but pretend you're actually able to predict what happens is what is nonsense in my eyes.
This guy just claims he is correct pretty much all the time and spends governement money and what is most likely barely above magic 8 ball predictions level.
** for a simple example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_pennies (one equilibrium, but it's completely random)
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game)
(three equilibrium, all equally valid)
edit: apologies if the above reads as an unstructured rant. I have never been much of a writer.
Interesting stuff!Panda Bear said:The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is I think the most well known example of how essential randomness is to quantum theory. If we assume particles react at random as quantum theory contends they do, then determinism is basically wrong. Although many aspects of quantum theory are still up for debate and it's entirely possible that some force beyond our current ability to detect, understand or measure is responsible for determining things such as the actions of particles that we may perceive to be random.
Another interesting thought is that if we assume determinism to be true then we have two possibilities regarding the origin of the universe. One is that there must be some first cause that is beyond the deterministic laws of the universe. The concept of God would obviously fall under this possibility. The second is that the last event to take place in the universe causes the first event, aka the Big Bang. This would mean that our lives have occurred and will continue to occur an infinite number of times without our knowledge.
Either way, there is really no way we could possibly know and thus the question of whether or not determinism is true is largely irrelevant to how we live our lives, even if it is extremely interesting to ponder.
