Ergodidiocy and the Nature of Modeling Human Experience

This piece is to give some axiomatic background to the subject of Ergodidiocy as developed under this topic. My point here is layered and syncretic, nonetheless coming from a monist who is getting ever closer to finding out first hand if that position is valid or just another instance of unverifiable idiocy; however, I should say unequivocally that I am a follower of the Lords Jesus Christ, Gautama Buddha, Krishna Prem and many others on the faith/awareness side of things, as well as a follower with equal enthusiasm of Sirs Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon, James Clerk Maxwell, Max Planck, and others on the science/analytical side, and of course logical people in general. The current apparent conflict between these two ways of seeing the world as represented in much of the public mind are just that in my opinion, an apparition which should go away, but left to my own devices, motivates this modeling.

An individual Soul over a lifetime, or lifetimes, on various levels of focused experiences, makes sense of that life through a creative process which places that Soul from birth in a learned personal and communal history in the context of a modeled cosmology. That context is both protective and restrictive, where the former is cautious and conservative, while the latter chaffs and calls for liberation from those restrictions. Freedom to pursue opportunity conflicts with aversion to risk; within and between each soul and within and between each identifying and affiliating group of souls. Objective science and subjective faith focused through the operating lens of political economy can at times reflect this conflict, where the conservative polarity of each aligns against the liberating polarity of the other.

Objectively socialized science is conservative in terms of its control of its worldview and protection of its norms, but liberating in terms of its technological innovation and effects on the political economy. Subjectively cultured faith, traditionally affiliated or otherwise, is liberating for the individual in terms of its understanding and placement of the individual in their view of the world, but conservative in terms of its prohibitions on innovation and the protection of norms in the public realm.

While science is self-consciously progressive and evolving, it is cautious about examination of its own axioms, as is faith. Science is conditioned toward the application of rational modeling, involving experimental quantitative feedback when possible, whereas acquired faith generally does not look for experimental confirmation of its propositions. Faith is liberating in its tendency to remove concerns of the unknown and address trepidation, often without the need to change the world through public interaction; science finds its confirmations subjectively liberating, rewarding, and objectively disruptive. In contrast to some threads of public discussion, my perception is that reason that is grounded in logic is instrumental in the modeling of both science and faith, where that modeling can be generated by both conscious and subliminal processes, evidence of expertise or its mistaken equivalent, idiocy.

In general, with the exception of the life sciences, most modeling abstracts sentience from the level of the whole system macrostate and its individual microstates, though it is obviously present in the extraneous formation of any model. Modeling involves the self-conscious development of models requiring a range of learned skills, along with an unknown range of skilled learning. These are applied self-consciously to the selected field of study, in pursuit of confirmation of the accuracy and precision of their modeling in the social, physical, cognitive, and logical sciences, too often with insufficient thought given to the validity of their axioms and motivations. Here I am thinking primarily of economics, unified field physics, and some branches of theology, where I will use the term ergodidiocy when referring to the non-rigorous instances of some such modeling. The reader is free to apply the term to my own modeling if desired, and I will be happy to take it under advisement.

To this end, I am positing a set of generalized axioms for a logically consistent modeling applicable to both physical, i.e. inertial, and metaphysical, i.e. rationally organized & processed, systems. In some schools of thought, necessarily including monism, metaphysical incorporates the physical.

Modeling Axioms

Axiomatic to logically consistent modeling is:

  1. The notion of monism; specifically, essential continuity in time and space for inertial and in organization and process for any system macrostate, of one essential principle, from which all instances of seemingly separate phenomena are derived as microstates of the macrostate and not posited as disparate phenomena. The emergence of apparent irreducibility of antithetical phenomena in the evolution of a system for which a resolution is sought is to be found in an understanding based on closer delineation of the one essential, foundational axiom and not in an elaboration of the macrostate superstructure based on distinct ontologies.
  2. The notion of that continuity as a conserved potential; as a qualitative capacity to produce and respond to change or to alter activity within the macrostate, capable of measurement as power, quantifiable or gauge-able as a rate of change in activity over time, time itself capable of being integrally gauged.

This modeling of power as the source of observed phenomena is axiomatically valid for both science and faith. In the case of theoretical physics, that power is the conventional, theoretically quantifiable capacity to produce all the mass-energy of a big bang over a defined duration of time, be it a Planck second or some other gauge. In the case of Vedantic cosmology, it is the qualitative capacity of Brahman, as essential being beyond space and time to differentiate at the start of a cosmic cycle into the subjective self of Purusha or Paramatman as supreme consciousness and the objective quality of Prakriti, nature, or Mulaprakriti as the root substance out of which all the forms of nature are constituted. In the case of esoteric Judaism, that same essential potential is the Ain Soph Aur or formless limitless light from which all things emanate.

  • The secondary, but essential condition of a self-limiting containment boundary of the conserved quality; the concept of the modeled phenomena in the form of a finite space or field of n-dimensions (since an infinite space could by some definition produce a vanishing density), which gives
    • a density of the principle, where the derived property of potential density may itself be
      • conserved or
      • not conserved depending on whether the containment boundary is variable or not. In the case of a variable boundary, we must consider whether the field is
        • inherently extensive or is
        • emergent across such boundary as
          • from a source or
          • into a sink.
  • In addition, the containment boundary of the activity may be systemic, defined for the macrostate of the whole model, so that the modeled activity is continuous and infinitely differentiable within the boundary, and/or constrained within numerable sub-boundaries of the n-space as partitioned or quantized microstates of the macrostate qualitative continuity asinherent or as emergent phenomena, in which case we can assume that the bounded microstates so quantized are an essential function of the macrostate.
  • Change within the context of the conserved continuity indicates a degree of inertial quality of the density and secondary derived properties of the potential and the likelihood of a distributed statistical wave description and wave mechanism in the form of oscillation and periodic change in the intensity of that inertial property about some defined initial equilibrium or mean value as an invariant of
    • the macrostate at a point in time and of
    • any microstates for their cycle of change over time,

and we can say that the model is ergodic, so that it exhibits ergodicity.

  • If that change occurs within the context of a variable macrostate containment boundary  
    • by increases or decreases in the macrostate boundary over time, or conversely
    • by contraction of variable intermediate or local regions within the extents of the macrostate continuum,

so that the inertial potential density indirectly decreases or increases with that variability, resulting in emergent phenomena of focused, concentrated, or bounded quantization of microstates over time, as derived from the variable inertial potential density of the macrostate continuum,

we can say that the system is ergodically weighted so that it exhibits weighted ergodicity.

  • Finally, in an axiom generally not articulated, if a modeled system finds confirmation in the observed macrostate of model-represented data, exhibiting a rationality of the system under observation corresponding to that which has been extraneously modeled, we can say that the ontology of the observed system exhibits the monistic property of rational sentience, either by a teleology extraneous to the macrostate genesis and/or by a teleological sentience inherent in the macrostate or in its quantized microstates and which we will define as integral to the essential quality of power, the capacity to register, respond to, and initiate changes within the macrostate between microstates and across microstate boundaries, as articulated at the
    • global level of the macrostate continuum or the
    • local levels of the microstates or the
    • interaction of both.

With respect to the application of this approach to modeling in the reference video and related material  as ‘Ergodidiocy and the Nature of Modeling Human Experience, A Video Start: Economics and Ergodicity’ we have the following parameters.

Microstate[macrostate]>modeler>model>macrostate[microstates]: Here the individual microstate position in the macrostate dictates the activity of the modeler in forming and weighting the model to effect change in the macrostate by interaction with other microstates, where the weighting factor (wf) range is -1 wf ≤  1.

A.     In a strictly inert and therefore unbiased condition, wf0 = 0, indicating trivial ergodicity in the system.

B.     If a microstate is a weight setter as a Caput or head, (wfC), the range will be 0 < wfC ≤  1, unless the sense of the factor is inverted for qualitative reasons.

C.     If the microstate is a weight taker as a Cauda or tail, (wfC), the range will be -1 wfC < 0, unless the sense of the factor is inverted for qualitative reasons.

D.     If the weighting is conserved between microstates local or universally, we find (wfC) = -(wfC), which is a condition of weighted ergodicity in the system, where the microstate interactions indicate a state of focused rationality.

E.     If the weighting is not conserved, so that we find (wfC) -(wfC), it indicates the possibility that the model is ergodid, that is not strictly ergodic due to ergodidiocy in the system, where the microstate interactions indicate a state of unfocused rationality, perhaps as a variation of fuzzy logic, perhaps as ergodidiocy, or of focused irrationality, as a form of intentional bias, perhaps of unknown or unaccounted microstate quality or origin, in which case it counsels review of any model’s secondary axioms to determine the nature of the irrationality or departure of the model from its monist axioms. The possibility of greed or subterfuge in politics and economics might be considered as cases of focused irrationality, kindly as an ergodidiocy or unkindly as a malignancy.

Therefore, any modeling so constructed of consistent axiomatic logic and confirmed by observation of the studied system is confirmation of the sentient monism of the extant system as microstate>modeler>model>macrostate. As the microstate>modeler is inherently involved in a process of evolving experience and valued growth of expertise, which in a complex social and cultural milieu includes a variety of side-street venues filled with inexperience of unknown expectations and possibility of predations, amateur posturing by otherwise expert individuals and observation of expertise that is unrecognized by amateurs can be seen as equally valued in the public mind, mixing expertise and idiocy, in what is essentially a matter of whistling-by-the-graveyard. Hence the needed ‘caveat emptor’ calls for some discernment in any profession in evaluating a model>macrostate, with an eye to its ergodidiocy.

That is, with assessment feedback in the form of macrostate>modeler>model>microstate, experience of the compared model>macrostate gives the modeler some degree of confirmation of the model that results in a change in the participation of the microstate going forward and increases the microstate>modeler level of expertise. In the absence of feedback and assessment, an increase in the skill level is questionable, but if that absence is willful as an anti-expert, it becomes a matter of idiocy.

If this appears to make light of what is a seriousness consideration, it is because, well, it is appropriate. We can either laugh or cry about the implications in current affairs … or remain indifferent.

UniServEnt – Pluribus, Unum