Posts Tagged ‘complexity’
“The function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.”*…
For as long as there have been markets, there have been those who forecast them. Bob Seawright explains why, for all of that “practice,” forecasting is never– and never can be– a precise nor “perfect” pursuit…
… On our best days, wearing the right sort of spectacles, squinting and tilting our heads just so, we can be observant, efficient, loyal, assertive truth-tellers. However, on most days, all too much of the time, we’re delusional, lazy, partisan, arrogant confabulators. It’s an unfortunate reality, but reality nonetheless.
But that’s hardly the whole story.
We are our own worst enemy, but there are other enemies, too. Despite our best efforts to make it predicable and manageable, and even if we were great forecasters, the world is too immensely complex, chaotic, and chance-ridden for us to do it well…
Eminently worth reading in full for Seawright’s accounts of human nature, complexity, chaos, and chance– and of the ways in which they make confident predictions of the future a “Fool’s Errand.”
As Niels Bohr once said (paraphrasing a Danish proverb), “it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.”
(Image above: source)
* John Kenneth Galbraith
###
As we seek clarity, not certainty, we might recall that it was on this date in 1983 that Thomas Dolby’s “She Blinded Me with Science” reached #5 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart.
“Life is a Zen koan, that is, an unsolvable riddle. But the contemplation of that riddle – even though it cannot be solved – is, in itself, transformative.”*…
How hard is it to prove that problems are hard to solve? Meta-complexity theorists have been asking questions like this for decades. And as Ben Brubaker explains, a string of recent results has started to deliver answers…
… Even seasoned researchers find understanding in short supply when they confront the central open question in theoretical computer science, known as the P versus NP problem. In essence, that question asks whether many computational problems long considered extremely difficult can actually be solved easily (via a secret shortcut we haven’t discovered yet), or whether, as most researchers suspect, they truly are hard. At stake is nothing less than the nature of what’s knowable.
Despite decades of effort by researchers in the field of computational complexity theory — the study of such questions about the intrinsic difficulty of different problems — a resolution to the P versus NP question has remained elusive. And it’s not even clear where a would-be proof should start.
“There’s no road map,” said Michael Sipser, a veteran complexity theorist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who spent years grappling with the problem in the 1980s. “It’s like you’re going into the wilderness.”
It seems that proving that computational problems are hard to solve is itself a hard task. But why is it so hard? And just how hard is it? Carmosino and other researchers in the subfield of meta-complexity reformulate questions like this as computational problems, propelling the field forward by turning the lens of complexity theory back on itself.
“You might think, ‘OK, that’s kind of cool. Maybe the complexity theorists have gone crazy,’” said Rahul Ilango, a graduate student at MIT who has produced some of the most exciting recent results in the field.
By studying these inward-looking questions, researchers have learned that the hardness of proving computational hardness is intimately tied to fundamental questions that may at first seem unrelated. How hard is it to spot hidden patterns in apparently random data? And if truly hard problems do exist, how often are they hard?
“It’s become clear that meta-complexity is close to the heart of things,” said Scott Aaronson, a complexity theorist at the University of Texas, Austin.
This is the story of the long and winding trail that led researchers from the P versus NP problem to meta-complexity. It hasn’t been an easy journey — the path is littered with false turns and roadblocks, and it loops back on itself again and again. Yet for meta-complexity researchers, that journey into an uncharted landscape is its own reward. Start asking seemingly simple questions, said Valentine Kabanets, a complexity theorist at Simon Fraser University in Canada, and “you have no idea where you’re going to go.”…
Complexity theorists are confronting their most puzzling problem yet– complexity theory itself: “Complexity Theory’s 50-Year Journey to the Limits of Knowledge,” from @benbenbrubaker in @QuantaMagazine.
* Tom Robbins
###
As we limn limits, we might send thoroughly cooked birthday greetings to Denis Papin; he was born on this date in 1647. A mathematician and physicist who worked with Christiaan Huygens and Gottfried Leibniz, Papin is better remembered as the inventor of the steam digester, the forerunner of the pressure cooker and of the steam engine.
“These are the times that try men’s souls”*…
Last January, (R) D looked, via Adam Tooze, at the concept of the Polycrisis: “I know it is relentless. That is also a feature of the polycrisis we are in. It comes from all sides and it just doesn’t stop.” He’s developed his thinking, summarizing in a recent Financial Times piece…
Pandemic, drought, floods, mega storms and wildfires, threats of a third world war — how rapidly we have become inured to the list of shocks. So much so that, from time to time, it is worth standing back to consider the sheer strangeness of our situation…
Of course, familiar economic mechanisms still have huge power. A bond market panic felled an incompetent British government. It was, you might say, a textbook case of market discipline. But why were the gilt markets so jumpy to begin with? The backdrop was the mammoth energy subsidy bill and the Bank of England’s determination to unwind the huge portfolio of bonds that it had piled up fighting the Covid-19 pandemic.
With economic and non-economic shocks entangled all the way down, it is little wonder that an unfamiliar term is gaining currency — the polycrisis.
A problem becomes a crisis when it challenges our ability to cope and thus threatens our identity. In the polycrisis the shocks are disparate, but they interact so that the whole is even more overwhelming than the sum of the parts. At times one feels as if one is losing one’s sense of reality. Is the mighty Mississippi really running dry and threatening to cut off the farms of the Midwest from the world economy? Did the January 6 riots really threaten the US Capitol? Are we really on the point of uncoupling the economies of the west from China? Things that would once have seemed fanciful are now facts.
This comes as a shock. But how new is it really?…
“Welcome to the world of the polycrisis” (gift link)
Then, in his newsletter, he goes more deeply into the concept and its roots…
Polycrisis is a term I first encountered when I was finishing Crashed in 2017. It was invoked by Jean-Claude Juncker to describe Europe’s perilous situation in the period after 2014. In the spirit of “Eurotrash”, I rather relished the idea of picking up a “found concept” from that particular source. On Juncker check out Nick Mulder’s wonderful portrait of “Homo Europus”. It turned out that Juncker got the idea from French theorist of complexity and resistance veteran Edgar Morin, who is a whole ‘nother story…
“Polycrisis – thinking on the tightrope“
Both pieces are fascinating and useful; both, eminently worth reading in full…
* Thomas Paine, The American Crisis
###
As we ponder profusion, we might recall that it was on this date in 1898 that an American institution was born.
The University of Minnesota football team (for our non-American readers out there, I’m of course referring to the kind of football where you’ll get a penalty for using your feet) was playing their final game against Northwestern University. The U of M’s team had been having a lackluster year, and there was a general feeling on campus that this was due to lack of enthusiasm during the games. So several students, lead by Johnny Campbell on a megaphone, decided to lead the crowd of spectators in a chant: “Rah, Rah, Rah! Ski-U-Mah! Hoo-Rah! Hoo-Rah! Varsity! Varsity! Minn-e-so-tah!” The crowd went bananas, as they say, and an energized Minnesota team won the game 17-6.
That day Johnny Campbell and his (presumably drunk) friends became the first cheerleader squad.
[source]
“We are a species which is naturally moved by curiosity, the only one left of a group of species (the genus Homo) made up of a dozen equally curious species”*…
… and one thing that curiosity might lead us to wonder is where evolution might take humanity from here. As Nick Longrich points out…
Discussions of human evolution are usually backward looking, as if the greatest triumphs and challenges were in the distant past. But as technology and culture enter a period of accelerating change, our genes will too. Arguably, the most interesting parts of evolution aren’t life’s origins, dinosaurs, or Neanderthals, but what’s happening right now, our present – and our future.
He reasons to some fascinating possibilities…
Humanity is the unlikely result of 4 billion years of evolution.
From self-replicating molecules in Archean seas, to eyeless fish in the Cambrian deep, to mammals scurrying from dinosaurs in the dark, and then, finally, improbably, ourselves – evolution shaped us.
Organisms reproduced imperfectly. Mistakes made when copying genes sometimes made them better fit to their environments, so those genes tended to get passed on. More reproduction followed, and more mistakes, the process repeating over billions of generations. Finally, Homo sapiens appeared. But we aren’t the end of that story. Evolution won’t stop with us, and we might even be evolving faster than ever.
It’s hard to predict the future. The world will probably change in ways we can’t imagine. But we can make educated guesses. Paradoxically, the best way to predict the future is probably looking back at the past, and assuming past trends will continue going forward. This suggests some surprising things about our future…
Meet our future selves: “Future evolution: from looks to brains and personality, how will humans change in the next 10,000 years?“– @NickLongrich in @ConversationUS.
* Carlo Rovelli, Seven Brief Lessons on Physics
###
As we ponder the possible, we might send insightful birthday greetings to Richard Dawkins; he was born on this date in 1947. An evolutionary biologist, he made a number of important contributions to the public understanding of evolution. In his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, he popularized the gene-centred view of evolution and introduced the term meme. In The Extended Phenotype (1982), he introduced the influential concept that the phenotypic effects of a gene are not necessarily limited to an organism’s body, but can stretch far into the environment. And in The Blind Watchmaker (1986), he argued against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms; instead, he described evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker, in that reproduction, mutation, and selection are unguided by any designer.
“He said that there was death and taxes, and taxes was worse, because at least death didn’t happen to you every year”*…
There are lots of questions that surround taxation: how much? on what? for what? Scott Galloway (@profgalloway) explores a couple of others: how efficient? how fair?
* Terry Pratchett
###
As we ruminate on returns, we might recall that it was on this date in 1920 that the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case on the constitutionality of the income tax for the second and last time (so far). The Income tax had been authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, and created later that year via the Revenue Act of 1913. In 1915 stockholders filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, which arguing that the Sixteenth Amendment covers “many taxes other than on income”; in 1920, the Court affirmed the constitutionality of an income tax. Then came a second suit…
The United States Supreme Court last decided a federal income tax case on constitutional grounds in 1920, a century ago. The case was Eisner v. Macomber , and the issue was whether Congress had the power under the Sixteenth Amendment to include stock dividends in the tax base. The Court answered “no” because “income” in the Sixteenth Amendment meant “the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.” A stock dividend was not “income” because it did not increase the wealth of the shareholder.
Macomber was never formally overruled, and it is sometimes still cited by academics and practitioners for the proposition that the Constitution requires that income be “realized” to be subject to tax. However, in Glenshaw Glass , the Court held in the context of treble antitrust damages that the Macomber definition of income for constitutional purposes “was not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions” and that a better definition encompassed all “instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.”
In the century that has passed since Macomber , the Court has never held that a federal income tax statute was unconstitutional. This behavior of the Court constitutes a remarkable example of American tax exceptionalism, because in most other countries income tax laws are subject to constitutional review and are frequently ruled unconstitutional…
Reuven Avi-Yonah, “Should U.S. Tax Law Be Constitutionalized? Centennial Reflections on Eisner v. Macomber (1920)“
You must be logged in to post a comment.