Generally speaking only if the alignment of the overlapping circles is not randomly chosen.

See the fundamental point of the Shannon-Nyquist theorem (and yes I had to argue with the Wikipedia editors to get this language in their summary) is that a signal can not be both band-limited and time-limited (e.g. if time-limited you have infinite frequencies at the start and stop points).

In short, we can't know what is random and what is not. We can only base our expectations of those fixed points which are only fixed relative to the world we perceive (shared amongst those who share the common perception). I get deeper into the math in my blog article about what the universe really is made of:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html

So therefor you make your assumptions then you place your bets on those assumptions holding for the duration of your bets.

You won't be able to rule out serendipity ever. Long-tail distributions lurk, which is the point of Taleb's Antifragility taken with the inertia of concentration of mass.

Cheers Nice to talk with someone who can (I assume) understand what I wrote above.


Indeed, serendipity for example an altcoin comes along which allows you to exit BTC without it being a ponzi scheme, by gradually sucking value out while increasing distribution to the masses.

But in this case it isn't random relative to our shared perception, because I just told you what will happen

That is unless it disappears from your consciousness, which is quite likely I presume because you are not privy to everything I can see at the moment.

Well said. At least to a usefull approximation if your resolutions requirements are not to high.

Armstrong has coincidentally blogged today on what we are discussing here. Interesting read. You won't be disappointed.

yes

What you are saying is not coming through. Black swans are quite common globally, but rare within single constricted systems. FAPP we need to take the risk to omit them - and suffer the eventual consequences without whining when we repeat that risk over and over again until the unlikely becomes nearly certain on a personal scale.

What the man said: ...unlikely to even comprehend its cyclical complexity with linear thinking. It requires a change in the way we see the world...

Linear thinking will get you just halfway through!

That's why, from the metaphysical perspective, I'm not a fan of Taleb or some of such very usual sentiments that the likes of this forum are in bed with, with some of their very intelligent members. No offense intended, but lack of metaphysics is lack of reason.

 
The Armstrong article is excellent. (However I don't like the implication that all order is just emergence refined - saying that emergence "just exists" is not sufficient, but that speculation does not change its usability) Do you really think the article's appearance right now is a coincidence? To think so would imply incomplete understanding of what he is writing about.

+1 Hey your name makes me think of Engelbert Humperdinck. How cool to have a name like that!

I agree with this post to the letter.

Indeed.

Indeed + 1