Dear Readers,
A very short letter about how science cannot predict a chaotic process. Wait wait... that is why we have statistics. A seemingly random process is only random because we either don't have the analytical tools to decompose its simplicity or the computational power to deconstruct its complexity. A truly real life example of a statistical system, i.e., one in which trends can be determined with any rigorous error analysis as to how wrong we may be is the stock market, or more generally politics.
A stock market is not a thing that can be a truly random process as day traders and software makers who sell us the idea of being able to make money off of the ups and downs in said system might lead us to believe. Because, human nature is greedy, and as often it unfortunately turns out, greedy people are often the richest. They end up dictating how a stock will go... there are only two ways really - rise or fall. A truly Markovian chain would lead us to believe that either of these eventualities have a finite probability it could be 20% up if the company you've invested in is going bust, or a 60% probability if your investment of choice has promise, but there's a competitor out there that has pluck. But then, in comes the question of insider trading for which statistical characteristics may be drawn (a.k.a Duckworth Lewis in Cricket which predicts rain reduced match results based on historical performances in similar situations), but for the fact that insider trading is a day by day epitomization of corruption in which one individual or company decides that they want to make money off of individual ignorance of the masses.
While statistics is seemingly inclusive of the individual's effect on large scale processes, vis-a-vis an individual's take on what's going to happen, it is totally liable to outliers of a certain kind. One type is an individual's gaming of the system which does not really work in the broad sense. The other is a fundamental manipulation of the system, as in a gaming house's home field advantage. This is why casinos do so well with a house advantage. Its a question of how you game the system. No matter how an individual player thinks and might occasionally win a thousand dollars on a slot machine, the casino plays on the mindset of the masses and eventually ends up winning the 15% house advantage. In other words, a statistical anomaly might win out sometimes, but an anomaly created on a curve based on the general behavior will ALWAYS win out.
So too in politics. If someone says to you, "Vote, because your vote matters," you should reply to them, "Why, because I'm going to be one thousandth of one thousandth of one thousandth (Indian example) of the already fixed chance that my vote eventually matters? In other words, if no one else voted, my vote is not going to matter at all." Because politics is much like a casino. You might think that you vote would make a difference. But notwithstanding the fact that there are so many voters that your vote diminishes in significance by a quantifiable amount each time another is cast (but interestingly, the other way round in not true, because for a statistically significant result, your vote actually matter - why? See note 1 below), there are alliances that dictate a multi-party system's election result in such a broad stroke that the ideals you voted for are most certainly not the ideals that the country is going to be run by, why even bother?
Moreover, elections are like insider trading. Results are decided even before the first vote is cast. Part of that is definitely due to the corrupt nature of politicians, its the richest and the cruelest and the most greedy that make it into public life in the first place, statistically speaking. But most of it is not because of the usual answer of corruption and one party ceding control to the other. It is not even about anti-incumbency.
A fantastic government will still statistically end up losing the third term because of the statistics of human nature. Science, basically. As human beings, we always yearn for change. Change no matter how good our lives are now. Human greed leads us to believe that we can have something better next time around. This is why, left to our designs (unlike in a dictatorship or a kingdom, as the dynamics are quite different) we are not satisfied as a mass with the same brand of car, or the same TV show or the same lifestyle for too long.
This is precisely why molecules are seldom satisfied with a particular state of existence under the influence of outside forces... why for example fusion happens in the sun. We will... no matter how good the governance is, opt for change (See note 2). Can you name one dynasty, empire or otherwise, that has ruled any section of humanity for a thousand years (Inertial too has its limits in an Einsteinian universe)? Neither can I.
Ofcourse, there's insider trading in electoral politics and will continue to be until the sun goes supernova, but a deeper, fundamental reason why governments change is science. Statistics provides us with a tool to study this. Its also why (at our present level of understanding) mass opinion will end up mattering more than an individual's whim of good governance or making money at the slots.
So whether you vote for the Congress, the BJP pr a third front, it will not matter in ten years. Our Markov chain is not going to converge to a steady state transition matrix. We will always... ALWAYS end up voting for SOMEONE ELSE. And no matter what high opinion we might hold for our ourselves, representative democracy as is practiced in most so called democracies today will show scant regard to our votes. Please... still vote.
NOTE 1: If ten people vote for a single party, and an eleventh votes for a different one, then, the first party wins. Obviously. This is based on the assumption than the first ten voted on their own, with their own motivations. But if the first ten were coerced into voting for that particular party by, lets say a monetary incentive, and if the eleventh one voted fairly, then, the distribution of votes, i.e., ten to one was skewed even before the election started.
NOTE 2: Three people decide the fate of a stock. A and B have bought into it and want it to rise. But it rises at a rate they are not happy with. C is happy with his stock, but he feels that he can convince A and B that it would be much better if his stick did well. A is greedy by nature and so he says, "what the hell, let me buy more of C's stocks for a change. Maybe I could make more money that way". And the first stock falls.
A very short letter about how science cannot predict a chaotic process. Wait wait... that is why we have statistics. A seemingly random process is only random because we either don't have the analytical tools to decompose its simplicity or the computational power to deconstruct its complexity. A truly real life example of a statistical system, i.e., one in which trends can be determined with any rigorous error analysis as to how wrong we may be is the stock market, or more generally politics.
A stock market is not a thing that can be a truly random process as day traders and software makers who sell us the idea of being able to make money off of the ups and downs in said system might lead us to believe. Because, human nature is greedy, and as often it unfortunately turns out, greedy people are often the richest. They end up dictating how a stock will go... there are only two ways really - rise or fall. A truly Markovian chain would lead us to believe that either of these eventualities have a finite probability it could be 20% up if the company you've invested in is going bust, or a 60% probability if your investment of choice has promise, but there's a competitor out there that has pluck. But then, in comes the question of insider trading for which statistical characteristics may be drawn (a.k.a Duckworth Lewis in Cricket which predicts rain reduced match results based on historical performances in similar situations), but for the fact that insider trading is a day by day epitomization of corruption in which one individual or company decides that they want to make money off of individual ignorance of the masses.
While statistics is seemingly inclusive of the individual's effect on large scale processes, vis-a-vis an individual's take on what's going to happen, it is totally liable to outliers of a certain kind. One type is an individual's gaming of the system which does not really work in the broad sense. The other is a fundamental manipulation of the system, as in a gaming house's home field advantage. This is why casinos do so well with a house advantage. Its a question of how you game the system. No matter how an individual player thinks and might occasionally win a thousand dollars on a slot machine, the casino plays on the mindset of the masses and eventually ends up winning the 15% house advantage. In other words, a statistical anomaly might win out sometimes, but an anomaly created on a curve based on the general behavior will ALWAYS win out.
So too in politics. If someone says to you, "Vote, because your vote matters," you should reply to them, "Why, because I'm going to be one thousandth of one thousandth of one thousandth (Indian example) of the already fixed chance that my vote eventually matters? In other words, if no one else voted, my vote is not going to matter at all." Because politics is much like a casino. You might think that you vote would make a difference. But notwithstanding the fact that there are so many voters that your vote diminishes in significance by a quantifiable amount each time another is cast (but interestingly, the other way round in not true, because for a statistically significant result, your vote actually matter - why? See note 1 below), there are alliances that dictate a multi-party system's election result in such a broad stroke that the ideals you voted for are most certainly not the ideals that the country is going to be run by, why even bother?
Moreover, elections are like insider trading. Results are decided even before the first vote is cast. Part of that is definitely due to the corrupt nature of politicians, its the richest and the cruelest and the most greedy that make it into public life in the first place, statistically speaking. But most of it is not because of the usual answer of corruption and one party ceding control to the other. It is not even about anti-incumbency.
A fantastic government will still statistically end up losing the third term because of the statistics of human nature. Science, basically. As human beings, we always yearn for change. Change no matter how good our lives are now. Human greed leads us to believe that we can have something better next time around. This is why, left to our designs (unlike in a dictatorship or a kingdom, as the dynamics are quite different) we are not satisfied as a mass with the same brand of car, or the same TV show or the same lifestyle for too long.
This is precisely why molecules are seldom satisfied with a particular state of existence under the influence of outside forces... why for example fusion happens in the sun. We will... no matter how good the governance is, opt for change (See note 2). Can you name one dynasty, empire or otherwise, that has ruled any section of humanity for a thousand years (Inertial too has its limits in an Einsteinian universe)? Neither can I.
Ofcourse, there's insider trading in electoral politics and will continue to be until the sun goes supernova, but a deeper, fundamental reason why governments change is science. Statistics provides us with a tool to study this. Its also why (at our present level of understanding) mass opinion will end up mattering more than an individual's whim of good governance or making money at the slots.
So whether you vote for the Congress, the BJP pr a third front, it will not matter in ten years. Our Markov chain is not going to converge to a steady state transition matrix. We will always... ALWAYS end up voting for SOMEONE ELSE. And no matter what high opinion we might hold for our ourselves, representative democracy as is practiced in most so called democracies today will show scant regard to our votes. Please... still vote.
NOTE 1: If ten people vote for a single party, and an eleventh votes for a different one, then, the first party wins. Obviously. This is based on the assumption than the first ten voted on their own, with their own motivations. But if the first ten were coerced into voting for that particular party by, lets say a monetary incentive, and if the eleventh one voted fairly, then, the distribution of votes, i.e., ten to one was skewed even before the election started.
NOTE 2: Three people decide the fate of a stock. A and B have bought into it and want it to rise. But it rises at a rate they are not happy with. C is happy with his stock, but he feels that he can convince A and B that it would be much better if his stick did well. A is greedy by nature and so he says, "what the hell, let me buy more of C's stocks for a change. Maybe I could make more money that way". And the first stock falls.
