tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post7236006182667722550..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: A Classification of Types of Probability and Theories of ProbabilityLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-16736235746987440352013-07-15T01:11:51.861-07:002013-07-15T01:11:51.861-07:00Sorry if that was a tad obscure. Here:
http://fix...Sorry if that was a tad obscure. Here:<br /><br />http://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/recollection-and-repetition-ergodic-and-non-ergodic-processes-in-the-sciences/<br /><br />Hopefully that will clarify.Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-74556119752821415272013-07-15T00:49:21.262-07:002013-07-15T00:49:21.262-07:00Philip,
I believe that you mean those things in a...Philip,<br /><br />I believe that you mean those things in a sense that is - too - metaphysical. Despite your harsh rebuttal of my earlier point of connection between the determinism and the existence of probabilities, I still think that you are wrong in connecting those two concepts. <br /><br />It is practically impossible to find out how far the determinism goes. For example, the game of pool is deterministic in terms of classical mechanics, yet to what precision? Penrose thought that for mechanical interaction to be completely deterministic it must be infinitely precise in some physical sense; one of the more interesting if amateurish takes on his ideas I've read proposed that 'universe' has limited precision and some physical phenomena we observe are the results of round-up errors. But what really matters for the existence of probabilities is the existence of emergent regularities, not determinism or indeterminism of reality itself. <br /><br />In a double-slit experiment the outcome of the next experiment is almost certainly non-deterministic, that is, completely uncertain. But in repeated series of experiments an overlaying structure emerges - results converge to 50/50. This stochastic process is ergodic, despite that the underlying physical phenomena is indeterminate (or we believe it to be indeterminate). <br /><br />Note that I disagree with your philosophical interpretations of determinism and the existence of probabilities, not with existence of ontological uncertainty or the economy being a non-ergodic process. On these matters I'm one hundred percent with Keynes and Davidson and other like-minded people. I hope that I was able to present my objections to you in a constructive manner. Roman P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17384153967221979673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-24502687317902834822013-07-14T15:52:15.244-07:002013-07-14T15:52:15.244-07:00"Or, put another way: do you believe in deter..."Or, put another way: do you believe in deterministic laws that govern the universe and can be understood by human beings?"<br /><br />Understanding presupposes an ability to decide the focus of one's inquiry, to consider the evidence, to evaluate alternatives, to reach a judgment. (This was Kant's point). If all of these activities are determined in, say, the manner of a clock's workings, then it seems that these laws could not be *understood* by human beings or any other rational creature.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11677815746117897839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-45790656980939002772013-07-14T14:19:34.007-07:002013-07-14T14:19:34.007-07:00Well, I meant that -- and I think that I say this ...Well, I meant that -- and I think that I say this right after -- in a very metaphysical sense. I'm talking in terms of Absolutes here.<br /><br />The Big Question is: can we understand It All? Are there overarching Laws?<br /><br />Or, alternatively, are many of the things you mention simply repetitions, as philosophers like Hume, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche thought (the list is more extensive, but I won't go into it here)? Are the processes that are somewhat ergodic -- I don't think Davidson would claim that they are entirely ergodic -- just repetitions that are completely finite.<br /><br />I obviously take the view that they are repetitions and not Laws. I would say that, if I offered Davidson or Keynes my terminology, they would say largely the same thing.<br /><br />The neoclassicals and the probability guys, on the other hand, see an overarching structure where I see repetitions. They seek out Laws where I -- and I think you and other Post-Keynesians -- humbly seek out regularities or repetitions.Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-24076538766210759302013-07-14T13:42:19.709-07:002013-07-14T13:42:19.709-07:00Very interesting.
You say:
"Everything come...Very interesting.<br /><br />You say:<br /><br /><i>"Everything comes down to this: do you believe that the future mirrors the past? Or, put another way: do you believe in <b>deterministic laws that govern the universe and can be understood by human beings?</b>."</i><br /><br />With respect to "do you believe that the future mirrors the past", the answer is -- obviously in significant areas of human history or social life -- "no" or "rarely", or "only in a limited sense." E.g., business cycles -- in the general sense of cycles of expansion and recession -- probably will continue as long as we have some form of capitalism, even though each phase of any cycle has unique properties and variables, not predictable in a objective sense.<br /><br />And once one moves from social sciences to natural sciences, then surely the answer must be, yes, there are plenty of processes where the future does mirror the past: cycles of days and nights, cycles of seasons from winter to summer, and so on.<br /><br />A Davidson says, the world is terribly complex mix of ergodic and non-ergodic processes. It is complicated by the existence of processes that behave in an ergodic way in the short term but in non-ergodic way in the long term. Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-29937891110816994112013-07-14T13:21:47.580-07:002013-07-14T13:21:47.580-07:00Here you go, LK:
http://fixingtheeconomists.wordp...Here you go, LK:<br /><br />http://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/infinite-monkeys-the-limits-of-probability-theory/Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-70087332129963677342013-07-14T09:53:58.873-07:002013-07-14T09:53:58.873-07:00"For example, what use is the time series dat..."For example, what use is the time series data on the average daily selling price of a stock in providing an objective numerical value for the probability that this stock will have value y on the 15 July, 2017? The answer is: it is useless."<br /><br />A better example is the EMH, because people actually do claim that its for real. It states that stock prices do follow a random walk -- as you've said above -- but that they will gravitate toward (if not reflect perfectly) their underlying value.<br /><br />The value is derived from an objective measure of their return. This return changes in response to information (for example, a new discovery by a drug company). The EMH holds that the new information is non-ergodic but that the manner in which people interpret it -- that is, the manner in which they set the price -- is ergodic because it follows the underlying value.<br /><br />This is actually the trick to a great deal of neoclassical theory. Events are often seen as non-ergodic. But peoples', and hence the economy's, response to these events is ergodic.Philip Pilkingtonhttp://www.nakedcapitalism.comnoreply@blogger.com