Meta and Politics

Sometimes we as humans are drawn to simple little systems, where the rules are clearly laid out, and the basic axioms are short. Things like Newtonian physics and Fibonacci sequences. When these simple systems have the ability to combine their rules in an open ended manner, the results can become quite complex, even though the ground rules are simple. These systems are happily adapted to computers which can handle insanely detailed application of these rules.

Reality however, is rarely one of these systems. Real systems tend to be much more complex. Intelligence for example, is certainly not readily describable in terms of a few basic axioms. Categorization, pattern matching, and allegory are all heavily dependent on the Meta. Anything dealing with general intelligence, communication, or flexible systems tends to be heavily imbued with Meta rules, that is, rules for describing rules.

When a system at its base is not a set of rules applied to the direct problem domain, but is instead made up of ground rules for the creation of rules depending on the current situation, potential for complexity soars. These meta rules allow the system to be very adaptable, and tends to fool our overly aggressive causal tendencies by producing counter-intuitive results. In fact, many times these Meta rules are completely hidden to the outside observer, masked by the generated rules for a given circumstance.

Many Meta systems are inherently recursive, not only allowing for several levels of rules, but also rules that depend and are defined in terms of themselves. This creates a situation in which all the rules can be explained, but the implications of those same rules is highly unknown (even when they are not hidden). The lines between Meta-rule and rule tend to blur.

Human intelligence appears to be highly meta, insanely complex, and capable of producing very unexpected results. Economics is the study of these systems in action, in parallel with billions of other similar systems all interacting at once. The resultant complexity astounds the mind. When so called "economists" are called upon to make predictions as to the future state of this massive interaction of complex systems (itself now a new monster system called the economy), one can only laugh, and shake one's head, as we watch the circus of those pretending to be the masters of meta fall down again and again.

So create your wrong headed doomed "Rescue" bills and regulations. Sell it to the public as a snake oil salesmen fleeces the poor and down trodden. And as disaster strikes yet again, sleep tight with the defense of "it couldn't be helped!", and "no one can blame us, we listened to the experts!".

Meaningful Phrases

I am trying to recall some of the moments in my past where I had or read a particular thought that produced or summed up a great deal of the way I think. Here is a sample of what came to mind.

People are fundamentally selfish. They act according to their most "perceived beneficial" action at all times. I was first exposed to this concept formally in C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. It was later spelled out in exhaustive detail by Von Mises' Human Action, and Murray Rothboard's Man, Economy, and State, and makes the basis of the Austrian School of Economics.

The Utopian vision of man vs the corrupt image of man. I first read about this in Thomas Sowell's book Basic Economics. Basically is man approaching some long away super society where he corrects his flaws and lives in harmony, or is where we are now basically where we have been all along and will always be. Basically realizing that you could split most political, moral, and social systems/thought with this one question. I tend to believe in the corrupt version.

The amount of information in a signal varies directly with how random it is. Put another way, the ability to compress information varies indirectly with how random it is. As an example, the particle movements of a wave crashing on the beach has an incredible amount of information in it. It would take incredible amounts of computer horse power to simulate it exactly. The main interest for me is that complexity is not in of itself useful or powerful. The more complex a system is not fundamentally better, and the reverse is more generally true.

Humans are rationalizing creatures rather than rational. The world is far more random than we think. This was an intuitive hunch for most of my life, with pointer's from Steven Pinker's books on the mind, but laid out beautifully by Taleb in The Black Swan, and Fooled by Randomness. People are fundamentally wired to see cause and effect in every situation and believe they know these causes, even in very complex systems. Humans are continually fooled by selection bias, and we share a universal inability to handle probabilistic thinking. This explains hero worship, our inability to learn from history, and explains the extreme epistemic hubris of most people. The apeal to me and the defining characteristic of the Austrian school of economics is its humility in regards to complex systems and its reluctance in determining cause and effect in history.

These are a few that came to mind this afternoon, what are yours?