tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post3181409393405084526..comments2023-07-07T10:20:47.692-04:00Comments on A Portrait of the Dumbass as an Old Man: Thinking, Fast And SlowChris Heinzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00045972508852914723noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post-52049518002277010632016-06-06T23:07:34.131-04:002016-06-06T23:07:34.131-04:00Mmmm. No. Not like the Matrix. Nobody outside the...Mmmm. No. Not like the Matrix. Nobody outside the box, looking in. Well, besides us.<br /><br />And yes, the rational view <i>is</i> necessary. Just not sufficient. Consider the set of all sets. Naive set theory, ie set theory as originally formulated, leads to Russell's paradox. However, by defining sets according to a weaker (more restrictive) set of axioms, the paradox can be resolved. (This is just from the Wikipedia article on Russell's Paradox.) The question is: Is the weaker form of the axioms (the ZFC axioms) a basis for a description of reality, or do the stronger axioms of naive set theory form a more valid basis for a (more complete) description of reality, even though they are inconsistent? Note that they do give us A=> B=> A=>... <br /><br />From the other point of view, I don't know that anyone has developed the logic of Quantum Mechanics from the ZFC axioms. Yet, they are requiring QM to be consistent, which, if true, would seem to imply the existence of some set of axioms <i>between</i> the ZFC axioms and the inconsistent naive set axioms. <br /><br />(I'm just ranting as I go over the article.) In ZFC, no set defines everything. So, if every set can be defined by some set of axioms, then no set of axioms defines the universe. So, by it's own terms, ZFC cannot form the basis for a complete description of the universe.<br />This does not imply that the universe is inconsistent. But it does make it- likely. The demonstration of an axiom system intermediate to ZFC and naive set axioms would be necessary, but may not be sufficient. It would itself, still have to be consistent. greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08201906679062960215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post-70794391507969680762016-06-06T11:32:29.301-04:002016-06-06T11:32:29.301-04:00"If the world is not consistent/rational/well..."If the world is not consistent/rational/well ordered" - I disagree with this premise. Throughout my 65 years, I have always been on the lookout for anything not consistent with a rational view of the universe. Despite many experiments to help inconsistency and irrationality along, I have never observed anything not consistent with the rational view. No deja vu cat like in The Matrix.Chris Heinzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00045972508852914723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post-1142046725060194992016-06-04T23:18:42.586-04:002016-06-04T23:18:42.586-04:00Hi, Chris. Haven't read your review yet, but ...Hi, Chris. Haven't read your review yet, but did read your Nov 2015 review you linked to. Many things to think about. But just to discuss two, briefly. (This comment is kind of meta- hope that's OK.<br /> <br />First: Loosely, for 'rational' thought to <i>be</i> rational ( ie sane) seems to me to be predicated on a rational, ie consistent universe. Yes, really: If the world is not consistent/rational/well ordered, then restricting your thinking to rational patterns is excessively limiting, (since it leaves out may relevant patterns in the universe which are not well ordered,) and is thus not rational. A=>B=>C=>A=>B=>... is an endemic pattern. To put it more formally: "No finite and/or consistent set of assumptions can be used as a basis for a complete description of the universe. " People aren't rational because to be rational would be to be insane. That many think they are rational, or that they should be rational, implies that they are insane. This does not mean that a finite and closed system cannot be analyzed. (Or synthesized.) It does mean that, for any given set of assumptions, there is a limit to the size and complexity of the object which can be described using those assumptions. In particular, theorems are only valid on a finite and consistent set of assumptions, and only for that part of reality which may be described over the basis of those assumptions.<br /><br />With respect to one particular, I think the Coase theorem implies a stability which isn't there. This statement of the theorem is from Wikipedia: Coase Theorem Version 2: <i>"As long as private property rights are well defined under zero transaction cost, exchange will eliminate divergence and lead to efficient use of resources or highest valued use of resources." </i> I believe the existence of money, (Or perhaps it is just interest!) eliminates the consistency of the assumption of well defined property rights. This is because of the fact that money is actually not property <i>per se</i>, but rather <i>demand</i> on (real) property, in particular the (real) property of others, and this compromises the requirement of 'well defined' property rights. I think, I think. This may be rather abstruse. The point is that it is the highest <i>demanded</i> use of resources which occurs, and this need not be economically efficient, as when yachts are built instead of schools, because that is where the demand, (ie money,) is. Hmm. I am wondering how far the analogy of monetary economy as a complex field, mathematically speaking, as opposed to a real field, mathematically speaking, without money, applies. Hmm. Wow. Really far out, there. <br /><br />A couple of other points on Coase. Bargainers will impose costs on each other, as a bargaining tactic. Also, the theorem seems to require total information, as a pre-req for 'well defined' property rights. Certainly asymmetric information would be a problem, as also asymmetric bargaining power. <i>Lots</i> of unmentioned assumptions, it seems. But, reality check is required to weigh against such idle speculation.<br /><br />Anyway. Other things to do tonight, and will get to this review- shortly, I hope.<br />greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08201906679062960215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post-48677670195716266822016-06-04T22:55:54.512-04:002016-06-04T22:55:54.512-04:00Sent it to your gmail email. You may have it alrea...Sent it to your gmail email. You may have it already. Happy to.greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08201906679062960215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post-91016822216765004532016-06-03T23:33:34.422-04:002016-06-03T23:33:34.422-04:00Greg,
I have a new post I would like you to revie...Greg,<br /><br />I have a new post I would like you to review before I post. Can you give me an email so I can send it to you?<br /><br />ChrisChris Heinzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00045972508852914723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post-49571841587747986352016-06-03T18:34:08.111-04:002016-06-03T18:34:08.111-04:00The Wikepedia article on Herd Behavior is better. ...The Wikepedia article on Herd Behavior is better. Maybe some entry points here.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_behaviorChris Heinzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00045972508852914723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post-48157340402985119822016-06-03T10:24:02.713-04:002016-06-03T10:24:02.713-04:00Thanks for the tip, I have added youarenotsosmart....Thanks for the tip, I have added youarenotsosmart.com to my RSS reader. Thanks also for the kind words of encouragement.<br />Chris Heinzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00045972508852914723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post-32369819024824544292016-06-02T23:53:58.180-04:002016-06-02T23:53:58.180-04:00Um:
The premise of this book is that it is easier...Um:<br /><br /><i>The premise of this book is that it is easier to recognize other people's mistakes than our own.</i> <br /><br />Probably:<i> It is harder to recognize our own mistakes than other people's mistakes.</i> is more accurate, at least for the rest of us. <br /><br />And I believe you will like: youarenotsosmart.com I find the Dunning Kruger effect especially ah-interesting. But then, what do I know?<br /><br />Also, going after original sources, I just started Alfred Marshall's 1890 text "Principles of Economics." Very readable, and so far, already, insightful. Kindle version. Very cheap.<br /><br />Perhaps more feedback after I actually read your review. (Which reviews, as I think I've told you, I generally find richly detailed and also otherwise excellent.)greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08201906679062960215noreply@blogger.com