16 Thoughts on “Simplification in Simple Statistical Forecasts (Column 473)”

  1. In the context of Bibi's argument, the argument assumes that there is one maximum, when it is quite possible (and even probable) that there are several charming ones, and therefore at least one minimum. In practical terms the argument is of little use, what the argument says is that there is an optimal tax rate (in terms of state revenue), a rather trivial argument. The important question is what is the optimal optimal percentage, which can probably vary from one economy to another and with the macroeconomic situation.
    In short, the less information the model contains (correct assumptions about reality) the less useful it is.

    1. This is the weakest criticism. Not even entirely true, because there is most likely to be only one maximum, and in each field it at least proves that not necessarily a tax increase increases revenue. This is the main argument.
      I also really do not agree that a little information is less helpful. Here too there is a more complex process that has an optimum.

  2. I have not yet perused, but one remark caught my eye. You wrote that in your opinion when there is no information about the distribution process then it is impossible to even talk about reasonableness. Speaking of what you mentioned at the end for parallels to discussions about Gd and creationism, on the subject of proving the uniqueness of the legal system I thought you did claim that uniqueness can be claimed without any information about the distribution process. What is the difference?

    1. When the process is not known to us at all but there is some process there, there is no point in assuming that the distribution is uniform. As I commented, this is at most a default that I would not build on much. But in the physiological theological view there is an assumption that the formation of the world is a complete case from the absolute nothingness (otherwise the question will remain what created what was before). In such a situation the assumption that the uniform distribution is the most reasonable and logical. An uneven distribution needs a reason. In the lottery of souls, if it is done by God or another mechanism there is a reason, and one has to know this reason to say something about it.

      1. I'm complicated but I'll try to grope a little more. It's hard for me to see the distinction between a uniform distribution and an uneven distribution, but I'll leave it at that (because it's an idea that needs to be pondered) and ask otherwise - seemingly a uniform distribution (suitable for symmetry considerations) is much more special than some non-uniform distribution.
        In addition, and I hope I'm not mistaken and disruptive, seemingly in the matter of most of the prohibitions that there are also mechanisms for hardware.

        1. exactly. Therefore a uniform distribution is assumed in the absence of other information. It is the simplest and most symmetrical.
          Regarding the halakhah in the prohibitions, each case on its own merits. But there one goes not only after the statistical consideration but after legal-halakhic rules (e.g. strive for simplicity. There are meta-legal principles that influence, etc.).

            1. We do not grill distributions. The distribution controls the lottery. The uniform distribution is the simplest and therefore assumed. Just as sewing dots on a straight line is better than sewing them along a sine, although you can say that the straight line is the simplest and therefore the most special.

              1. Seemingly from a place where you came in a straight line rather because you see that there is a simple and special line that sews approximately what is then so it is likely that this is not a coincidence. But we can not assume in the first place that a particular phenomenon will fall on a straight line without any anchoring. I understand you're saying simplicity considerations are completely a priori, but how does the line show that.
                (I pondered before the previous comment on the distribution lottery and did not get it and I still wonder)

                1. I do not really understand what the discussion is about. Do you disagree that in the absence of other information a uniform distribution is likely? Why make a difference between results? If one does not know about the differences between results in the sample space it is most likely that they all have the same weight. I do not know what to add.

                  1. But you are of the opinion that even in the absence of information it is unlikely to have a uniform distribution in souls. And you explained that it is because there is an unknown process, and only in the emergence of the unfinished does systems of laws were supposed to emerge in a uniform distribution and therefore the uniqueness of the system has proof of creation.
                    I still do not have a solid opinion, and perhaps there is a difference between before the events (that if one calculates expectation one should probably assume a uniform distribution) and after it has happened (then it is very difficult to faithfully assume that it should have happened in a uniform distribution). And MM in your method I asked and if exhausted exhausted.

                    1. exactly. And I explained the division. In the process the distribution cases are uniform. In the process of selection there is no reason to assume precisely that. And I added that maybe this is what I would assume without information, but I would not build anything on it.
                      It seems to me that we have exhausted.

                    2. Can you just make it clear to me if I understood correctly that in proving from nothing (assuming it is possible, for the sake of proof the Petah Tikva independent of cosmology) you positively claim that there will be a uniform distribution (and this is a critical claim for proof), not just a hypothesis of lack of knowledge.

  3. If the assumption is that we are not special, then it does not matter at all whether what happens to us happens for the first time or recently, with a probability of 50% or a probability of 1 per trillion, according to statistical rules or contrary to them. All of these do not change at all. After all, we are not special.

    So all this discussion is unnecessary.

Leave a comment