Re: Piorot on Madrick - Winslow's blast

["John M. Legge" <jlegge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

1.  Because "the universe is its own best predictor" the only way to learn
the winning lottery numbers is to wait until they are drawn.  God, or an
economically rational man, knowing how the balls were stacked in the barrel
and the exact operation of the selector lever, could predict the numbers
before the draw and be able to buy the winning numbers, guaranteeing a win.
Real people, lacking perfect knowledge and infinite computing ability,
cannot perform this feat and so cannot predict the result of a properly
managed lottery.

    Ted appears to be saying that something happens inside the barrel that
causes the uncertainty, that the balls don't bounce off each other exactly
in accordance with the laws of conservation of energy and momentum and the
law of gravitation (as modified by Einstein) can't completely explain the
way balls fall into the scoop. I am perfectly happy with the laws of nature
as currently stated, and explain the difficulty of predicting the outcome of
the lottery as reflecting limitations of my data collection ability and my
computing resources.

2.  The word "rational" clearly arouses powerful, not to say irrational :)
emotions.  If God was kind enough to tell me what the winning lottery
numbers were going to be tomorrow, and I did not buy a ticket, THAT would be
irrational.  On the premises that most of us adopt, a person who bought
lottery tickets because they believed that God had revealed the numbers to
him would be acting irrationally.

    In general we can only determine what would have been the rational
action ex poste, when it is too late to choose it: "the moving finger
writes..."  People, IMHO, make the best choices that they can, and if they
are influenced by voices in the air those of us who can't hear the voices
might call their action irrational, but the person so influenced will claim
to be acting perfectly rationally.

    Every so often someone chooses lottery numbers on the basis of a dream
or some other "irrational" mechanism, and then wins.  Ex ante they were
irrational, and might well have agreed with that description (I know its
silly, but...")  Ex poste what do you call it?  Statistically we know that
most people who choose their lottery numbers don't win, but statistics can't
be used to prove that those who choose and win are being irrational.

    Keynes cheerfully described people whose actions were not in accordance
with his view of the world as acting irrationally, but that is what comes of
having an Eton education.

    Complexity theory suggests that while there are many choices which may
be ruled out ex ante by someone as inconsistent with their objectives there
remain many choices which can't be.  People will do the best that they can,
but "what happens is what no man wills" (Hear the Word of the Lord.)  It
rejects arguments whose premises include knowing the winning lottery numbers
in advance because such knowledge, at least in respect of a properly
conducted lottery, is impossible to obtain. Logic, no matter how impeccable,
can prove nothing by starting from a false assumption.

JML



> -----Original Message-----
>  Ted Winslow wrote (part)
>
> By the way, you're meaning leads to Hume's problem of induction;
> Whitehead's, in terms of "internal relations," doesn't.  This is
> additional to the problem of self-contradiction to which I
> pointed i.e.
> on your meaning of "cause" and "determined,"  present actions are
> determined in a way that leaves no logical space for the idea
> of present
> _choices_ affecting what will occur in the future.  Even if we ignore
> the impossibility, on your premises, of a finite mind
> reaching perfect
> knowledge, "the selection of actions in the true best
> interests of the
> selector" is, on your premises, logically impossible e.g. knowing a
> future winning lottery number would be of no use because you
> would also
> know the winner.
>
>