Signal-to-noise ratio: Difference between revisions

{{quote|''{{Taleb antifragile signal to noise}}}}

If the information content of the universe, [[Space-time continuum|through all time and space]] is ''as good as'' infinite<ref>This assumes there is not a finite end-point to the universe; by no means settled cosmology, but hardly a rash assumption. And given how little we have of it, the universe’s total information content ''might as well be'' infinite, when compared to our finite collection of mortal data. Even the total, ungathered-by-mortal-hand, information content generated by the whole universe ''to date'', not even counting the unknowable future, is as good as infinite.</ref> and the data ''homo sapiens'' has collected to date is necessarily finite<ref>[[There is no data from the future]].</ref> (even counting what we’ve lost along the way), it follows that the total value of our [[data]] — in which Professor Fisher would have us trust — is, like any other finite number divided by infinity, ''mathematically nil''.

If this is what we’re meant to trust, you might ask what is so wrong with God. We are [[The Patterning Instinct: A Cultural History of Humanity’s Search for Meaning - Book Review|pattern-seeking machines]]. It’s not like we take the data as we find them, coolly fashioning objective axioms from them, carving nature at its joints: we bring our idiosyncratic prisms and pre-existing cognitive structures to the task —our own “hot takes” — and wantonly create patterns to support our pre-existing convictions.  

This is not a criticism as much as a piece of resignation: an observation. ''This'' is the doom our incarcerate race endures.

This is neither a cause for alarm nor is it new. It is just a reminder how important, in all human discourse, is [[Contingencies|contingency]], provisionality, and above all ''humility''. ''Your data is likely bunk''.

All of these are another way of attacking a familiar problem: the universe, the world, the nation, your market, your workplace and even your interpersonal relationships are [[complex]], not just [[complicated]]. Mere [[complication]] is a ''function'' of a [[paradigm]]. It is part of the game. It is within the rules. It is soluble, by sufficiently skilled application of the rules. Complication can be beaten by an algorithm. You ''can'' brute force it.

[[Complexity]] describes the ''limits'' of the [[narrative]]. [[Complexity]] is the wilderness ''beyond'' the [[rules of the game]]. [[Complexity]] inhabits the noise, not the signal. Where there is complexity, ''algorithmic rules do not work''. Here ''data'' is relegated to ''noise''.<ref>Provisional theory:  “information” is [[data]] framed with a hypothesis.</ref>

This is why physical sciences apparently have a greater success than social sciences: they ask themselves easier questions: Physical sciences generally address behaviours of independent events — rolling balls, [[Coin flip|flipping coins]], waves [[and/or]] particles of light. But rolling balls are not autonomous agents. They act independently. The behaviour of one will not influence that of another. Each [[coin flip]] is, as a condition of probability theory — independent.<ref>The technical term: “platykurtic”.</ref> Independent events obey Gaussian principles. They may be modelled. That is to say, they may be [[complicated]] but they remain predictable, at least in theory. When physical systems inexplicably go bang — Chernobyl, the Shuttle ''Challenger'', the ''Torrey Canyon'' — the [[root cause]] will not be a failure of the physical science underlying the engineering, but some supervening cause invalidating the underlying assumptions on which the physical science was based. Things go bang because of [[non-linear interaction|''non-linear'' interactions]].