Hey Cliff, just wanted to say that the Klein bottle I bought in 2014 or so is the best buying experience I’ve ever had. It’s still the only piece of home decoration I own. Thanks!
Many thanks, indeed, Kabb. I hope the manifold is still working after, uh, seven years. (You're aware, of course, that it's covered by my exclusive 1,000,000 year guarantee.)
Seems like it's a fallacy of limiting oneself to stationary reasoning. Differential equations and difference equations that capture temporal and causual behaviors are a thing. A large part of control theory is model identification, which tries to fit a temporal model to data.
In a difference equation x(t+1) = f(x(t),u(t)), u causes changes to x and not the other way around
If we don't know that the true equation is x(t+1) = f(x(t),u(t)) but have to infer it from data, then observing that such an equation seems to hold true for some particular u and x does not mean that u causes changes to x.
It may simply be a predictor of x, as in the 'barometer readings may precede and imply a storm but not cause one' example given by others above.
Differential equations say nothing about causality they just describe what happens. Please remember that Pearl literally wrote the book on this topic before assuming he missed an elementary counter example.
I don't see the relevance. You can have (non-differential )algebraic equations that involve a "time" parameter. They can be non-reversible in the sense that I think you mean - that knowing a point "back" in time tells you values in the future but knowing a value in the future does not (uniquely) determine the solution before that point. [For example x^2 = t^2 for t <= 0 and x^2 = 0 for t >= 0. There are two continuous solutions x(t) which are equal at say t=1.]
For differential or non-differential equations, they're still just describing how something is and not the causality behind it. It's always possible that the equation is merely a result of hidden variables and there is no casual relationship between any two points of the solution in any meaningful sense.
I meant in how people talk about "causality", it is always poorly defined. It seems like there is a implicit assumption about irreversible systems at play.
For some closed physical systems this is pretty much true, but I think the way people think about the world is at odds with this. That is why we find things like this so surprising https://youtu.be/p08_KlTKP50
It gets even murkier when you think of statements like "Hitler coming into power caused world war 2". There are so many things going on in that system that it couldn't possibly be true (e.g. if you change Hitler out for another person maybe world war 2 still happens), but works as a plausible line of causal reasoning for a lot of people.
The fundamental contradiction of the Diversity Religion:
- There are no differences between different races and sexes.
- It is good for business to recruit more minorities because they bring different perspectives (they think differently).
Three of the four links that "make the business case for diversity" are based on the same McKinsey study that explicitly states that "correlation does not imply causation". Could it simply be that only profitable companies can afford to worry about the skin color make-up of its workforce?
The author also admits that she joined an all-male team with a great culture, but that doesn't seem to have made her pause in her quest to impose her own aesthetical preferences as manager.
I find it reminiscent of a religion in that adherents subscribe to certain ideals that can not be argued about ("it's the right thing to do" as the author says). My amateur psychologist analysis is that people need a higher cause, and in the absence of traditional religions they instead join political movements such as this one.
I too believe our brains are hardwired to be receptive to certain power structures/belief systems. Science can be a religion-- you be a zealot about anything if you try.
Global warming, true or not has all of the hallmarks of a religion-- which is why I think generally, religious folks aren't as receptive to the idea-- that need of theirs is already filled.
Time will tell whether the system is more or less robust with Dodd Frank. Also the previous system seemed robust until the crash happened. An argument could be made that more legislation and onerous regulation pushes smaller actors out of the game. Then you end up with a bunch of too-big-to-fail corporations that take the whole system down if they fail. Regulatory capture is also a major issue with too big entities.
It's interesting that you give Switzerland as an example since many would regard it as the most libertarian country today. Could you imagine this [2] happening in the US?
Public spending to GDP ratio [1]:
Sweden 51
US 42
Canada 42
Switzerland 34
When the Swedish welfare state has collapsed (I'm Swedish, and it's not looking good) you are welcome back to the small government camp :).
No 1 is a good argument against libertarianism. A counter-argument is that more libertarian-style decentralized decision-making would mitigate negative externalities and the "common good tragedy". Research suggests [3] that negative externalities can be managed in smaller communities; smaller government also makes it harder for parasitic organisations to suck out money. Pollution can also be taken care of in the court system rather than regulation.
Before advancing an "how would X work?" argument, you should consider whether X really works better in other systems. Last time I checked, there was a ton of flooded houses in Houston, plenty of people smoke, and there is quite a bit of organized crime (a popular one in Sweden is "assistance compensation" paid out by the government to people who take care of sick relatives at home. Who would ever think about abusing it?? Surely not the mafia and IS). No-one is claiming that liberty will produce a perfect world, but that it's the morally right thing. As a bonus it would also likely produce better outcomes (on average) than what we have today.
The US isn't a libertarian country, and neither is Switzerland, and public spending to GDP doesn't mean anything within the context of what I was saying because it doesn't take into account what the funds were spent on.
The US overspends on its military and mismanages its spending on healthcare. If Sweden's welfare / education / state has collapsed since I lasted checked it out, I'll update my views, but I certainly haven't seen rising illiteracy or poverty like we see in the US.
It could be argued that these criteria lead to the opposite conclusion.
Many producers: maybe not, but most countries have at least 3 [1]. Not worse than e.g. major grocery store chains or gas stations.
Many consumers: definitely
Product uniformity: significant--I don't care how my 1 mb of data or 1 min of talk is routed
The key anti-free market characteristic is arguably the limited amount of frequency spectrum, which is allocated via centralized auctions. Yet I don't recall hearing similar complaints about the radio or TV industries in Europe.
A lot of the arguments in this thread are that the market is inefficient and therefore must be regulated, but is this the right path if the inefficiencies are due to regulation in the first place?
Put another way: most consumers don't care about roaming; if they did they would consider it when signing a contract. So why should the EU force roaming on everybody instead of letting operators offer products tailored to the individuals?
Whether the market is currently competitive or not, this move will result in less competition as there is more price fixing and less room for operators to differentiate their offerings.
