laws of measureability

[AntonioLao]

Today, the American by the name Kenneth Arrow at age 89 is still one of many influential economists around the world. He shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics with the British John Hicks in 1972. He is one of the founders of the Santa Fe Institute, a private non-government supported organization studying the Sciences of Complexity. Ever since this economic prize was founded in 1969, there were 41 awards to 64 laureates of internationally renowned economists. however, reading their Nobel lectures, one can almost certain that all were speaking about the same universal economic principles but none indicated that there is such a theory of everything in their particular scientific discipline. From Arrow's impossibility theorem to Elinor Ostrom's complex economic systems, all discuss the balance of supply and demand.
Nonetheless, what many economists failed to realize is that there are two fundamental laws of measureability in all the sciences: (1) the law of averages and (2) the law of excellence. The first creates a physical uniformity such that collectively everything looks equal and economists talk of average buyers or average sellers with average IQs producing average products while the law of excellence implies selling the best products for the most informed buyers for the best prices money can buy. Either way, profits can be made but making the most profits can only be temporarily gained for the cheapest cost products selling at the highest prices but for the least functionality. But after buyers acquainted with the below average products they will stop buying them and no more profits can be made and profit margins become loss margins. The same laws of averages and excellence can be applied to energy production. An average meal consists of average nutrients will keep an average person alive but only an excellent meal with high protein and high calories can keep an active athlete performs. In turn, highest performance athletes demand the highest financial compensations. The continued progress of any given human society must inevitably embrace a law of excellence since any society lives by a law of averages will gradually decay into abject poverty as witnessed by what's happening in most inner cities. If this law of averages is applied nationally then a former properous nation is doomed to become a weak nation. If this law of averages is applied internationally then the state of the world will turn from a world of order into a world of chaos. In other words, both low and middle grounds do not help the progress (they stop or regress the growth) of civilization, only the high ground excited quantum states can sustain longevity.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Kenneth Arrow and John Hicks' ideas of perfect complexity maths are what landed America and the World in the crash of 2008...

This is well known among the better economists of the world__The heterodox economists__The ones who realize averages are all that can be known__instead of the 'liars poker of complexity maths...'

Here's a link to the newest criticism of the math you speak of... LINK... This is an August 2010 article, Paul Davidson__a sound economist__sent me...

The Arrow/Debreau 'ergodic black box' has been responsible for economics false models, since they were awarded their first Nobel Prize__Illicitly, as the referee against them was mysteriously removed from the panel of Nobel judges...

This stuff's all recorded in the economic histories of many heterodox economists__the one's against the Chicago School foolishness...

You can read it all here... LINK...

Abstract

Almost no economic time series is either weakly or strictly stationary: distributions of economic variables shift over time. Thus, the present treatment of expectations in economic theories of intertemporal optimization is inappropriate. It cannot be proved that conditional expectations based on the current distribution are minimum mean-square error 1-step ahead predictors when unanticipated breaks occur, and consequentially, the law of iterated expectations then fails inter-temporally. A second consequence is that dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models are intrinsically nonstructural.

[AntonioLao]

a link to the newest criticism of the math you speak of

Stop putting words in my mouth. I speak of no math you alluded to and never will. The math I use for cold fusion is simply linear algebra of matrices and specifically restricted to only Hadamard matrices. They have nothing to do with economic theory. But I'm glad that it took this thread to finally have an idea of where you stand.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Stop putting words in my mouth. I speak of no math you alluded to and never will. The math I use for cold fusion is simply linear algebra of matrices and specifically restricted to only Hadamard matrices. They have nothing to do with economic theory. But I'm glad that it took this thread to finally have an idea of where you stand.

You spoke of Kenneth Arrow and John Hicks__did you not?__Economists responsible for the exact math the article criticism__I posted to you__is about. Just because you don't know what you are talking about, doesn't mean I don't know what you stated... And you state an untruth, as you did speak of such math__That math is what they got the nobel prize for__in the `70's... If you'd wake up, you might just realize physics and economics use the same exact mathematical foundations...

I'd suggest you get an economic education, before attempting to debate economic maths, Antonio...

It's a bit more complex, than you think...

You got your math ideas backwards...

I was criticizing Arrow and Hicks, and talking about a completely different mathematical system__one that banishes the ergodic axiom...

'A law of excellence', as you call it, is more or less what the mainstream of economists have been following__the excellence of Arrow/Debreau/Hicks__which ain't so excellent, as the real world found out since September `08__So now, the best economists are advocating the deserved respect for 'True Averages'__and not the pseudo-perfect-averages advocated by Arrow/Defreau/Hicks false-mathematical modelings...

If 'A True Law of Excellence' were possible, it'd be great__the problem is with human psychology being what it is__This is not possible...

Btw, Aristotle was the first to mention 'The Law of Excellence'__which in Greece meant the 'mean'__'not too much, and not too little'__or, 'moderation in all things'__Kinda like 'True Best Averages'__as I alluded to__or the 'Generality of Genericity' of the other thread__what I've been writing about for the last twenty years__Find the 'Best Mean System...'

You see, when one tries to take law beyond its capacity of evolution__as per 'A Law of Excellence', the unintended consequences overwhelm such systems' thinkings__unless one adheres to the original meaning, by the Greeks__'Best Mean Possible'__which actually existed at least as far back as Pythagoras, and if my memory's correct__even earlier...

Didn't you ever notice the first graphic I ever posted, Antonio...???

[AntonioLao]

I'm surprise your slander and libel have not made you into a jailbird already. You are lucky that I'm just a poor researcher with no lawyer to back me up. Otherwise you would have been in some legal entanglement by now. The fact is I wont lie to you even if my life depend on it. All I can say is that you have a way of inserting imaginary words in others mouths and writings and making your own interpretation of what it means. Frankly, i dont think you have anything that would make anyone think you know what you are talking about. Arrow and Hicks are just economists and whether they use math is beside the point for my discussion of laws of measureability. What this thread means is the setting of a high standard in whatever people do for the benefit of society. If this standard is an average then that would not do for the betterment of the whole society. But if the standard is at the highest possible then the result will be more of high achievements near the top.

[Graybeard]

I'm surprise your slander and libel have not made you into a jailbird already. You are lucky that I'm just a poor researcher with no lawyer to back me up.

Hire Lloyd as your lawyer on the principle that if you can't beat em, join em ... it won't cost much coz he does it for love.... and he will out argue anyone who opposes you, just by adopting their argument, even if it is patented, and making it his own.

Give up now ol' buddy, no one can argue with the following logic ....

Just because you don't know what you are talking about, doesn't mean I don't know what you are talking about [stated]...

... it sorta makes sense ... or sounds like it should ... or would, if you could just grasp it for a moment ... its classic and the more you read it, the more you are left in doubt ... ....and what possible answer is left to reply ... rotflmao


cool bananas ... greg

[AntonioLao]

Thanks. At the rate lawyers are charging, I can't afford it if I need one, a winning one that is. In the courthouse lawyers are not legally bound to get personal in the sense many posts are heading toward in this forum. The standard I am looking is objectivity and impartiality concerning scientific discussions. I'm reminded of what the Chinese philosopher Confucius said:

One who knows not and knows he knows not, he is simple teach him.
One who knows and knows not he knows, he is asleep wake him.
One who knows and knows he knows, he is wise follow him.
One who knows not and knows not he knows not, he is a fool shun him.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I'm surprise your slander and libel have not made you into a jailbird already.

Antonio my man, now just where is it you see slander and libel...? I merely restated what's been known and fully stated in the economic communities for over thirty years now__and besides__America does have a constitution__Free Speech...

You are lucky that I'm just a poor researcher with no lawyer to back me up. Otherwise you would have been in some legal entanglement by now.

Antonio__The truth is not against the law...

The fact is I wont lie to you even if my life depend on it. All I can say is that you have a way of inserting imaginary words in others mouths and writings and making your own interpretation of what it means.

You seem to be unaware, there's an academic code of historical precedence conduct__that when a major earlier writer of note has coined a phrase, law or theorem__that that is the meaning to be used. Aristotle coined 'The Law of Excellence' to mean 'Virtue' 2300 years ago. Respect of history does not allow you to change this meaning, unless you improve upon it... Logical consistency could not exist if everyone were allowed to change history's contextual meanings__at will. It'd be like listening to a million Melanies...

I'm all ears if you can write a better 'Law of Certainty of Excellence'__Where's your law's content...? If you answered to the substance of what I and you are writing about, instead of the insignificant feelings__you'd have better luck at not feeling and taking the words so personal... The choice is yours...

Frankly, i dont think you have anything that would make anyone think you know what you are talking about.

See how foolishly personal you are...? The subjectivists never notice their own faults__but they sure can blame others... Chuck the feelings__and deal with the content...

Arrow and Hicks are just economists and whether they use math is beside the point for my discussion of laws of measureability.

They are mathematical economists__Big diff... And they do have everything to do with anyone's discussion about the laws of measurability__especially since you spanned the content from Aristotle to the present. The central tenet of Arrow and Hicks works were on ergodicity__one of the central problems of measurement__which started in Boltzmann's incomplete formulations__a mathematical physicist... The base of Boltzmann's incomplete formulations goes back into Cantor's incomplete formulations of the Continuum Hypothesis, as that was the other half of Boltzmann's ergodic theorem, or there-abouts, as he kept much of this work secret...

So, measurement_whether physics, mathematics or economics_goes back to these same foundational problems__whether you like it or not... Walras was the physicist, turned mathematician, turned economist of 'General Equilibrium Theory'(a measurement theory), that links all three back in the 1800's...

What this thread means is the setting of a high standard in whatever people do for the benefit of society.

In order to set a high standard, you have to have a higher standard of knowledge and respect of objective content than you are choosing to use... 'High standard' is not kissing butt__of those with wrong ideas... It is righting the wrongs of history__of which there are plenty__That takes constructive criticism__which is all I'm using...

If this standard is an average then that would not do for the betterment of the whole society.

That is a purely subjective point of view__especially when dealing with historical meanings, that have clearly different meanings__at different periods of history... If you check your history, you'll find 'Average' has many meanings__especially that which concerns the Greeks, and especially the Pythagoreans__Einstein so respected, since his full E=MC^2 formula is a Pythagorean formula. And__the Greeks believed in the triadic mean term between the two extremes. It was Aristotle who started the narrow-minded dyadic syllogistic nonsense logics__that apply to so much modern measurement analyses mistakes...

But if the standard is at the highest possible then the result will be more of high achievements near the top.

And, have we ever seen this fact bear out__anywhere in world history...??? Hasn't there always been two sides to this very sharp razor-blade...???

So now, getting to your modern interpretation of 'The Law of Excellence'__What is its content__Precisely...???

I have mine also, written as a theorem, which is easily mathematized__but since it's your thread__Let's discuss your's first...

And please__Content__Not subjective feelings...

Btw Antonio__There are three modal states of probability theory and logics which enter into all measurement, due to quantum mechanics(measurement maths and ideas) being so dependent on probability maths__These are 'objective probability', 'subjective probability' and 'philosophic probability'__Introduced by Cournot in 1843, who extensively studied Laplace, who majorly influenced Walras' measurement ideas__along with many other physicists, mathematicians and economists... These ideas play so strongly into any and all physics or any other measurement ideas__as all researchers usually are blind to the basics of which probability method was used, or they are using, in researching and producing their final products of measurement__simply put, 'Is it based on objective, subjective or philosophical(natural law) probability systems...???' This problem permeates the entire measurement industry...

You see, from the above__the objective/subjective/philosophic distinctions can not be avoided__to successfully advance measurement theory and facts__even if this means stepping on feelings, once in a while... To overly respect the subjective feelings involved would take one a lifetime of never accomplishing the desired objective measurement system goals__so feelings must be ignored to advance science... Feelings can be brought to bear later__as true values added to science__as a respect of such final wisdom states...

The Question Is__How do we 'Quantify' objective measurment analysis, from subjective and philosophic measurement analyses__when history has them so conflated and confused...???

[MJA]

The laws of measurability are as flawed as measure itself.
Life without those flaws is the absolute freedom of truth.
Be One

=
MJA

[AntonioLao]

In the context of this thread and the law of supply and demand, one who demands the best will most likely get the best. When someone try to sell a below average idea the most knowledgeable person will surely not buy it. But before one decided to buy or not, the person interested in buying must understand completely the idea, not just accepting it by its face value or just because someone said so. A workable idea is one that has been recognized to work in almost all cases. In science, these are experimental cases and not by hearsays.