82,968
edits
Tail event: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Dice are not machined perfectly. But they are similar. The broad principles of probability apply to them generally, roughly. | Dice are not machined perfectly. But they are similar. The broad principles of probability apply to them generally, roughly. | ||
But “similar” is a word, and therefore a value judgment. It exists in the domain of signifiers, not signified. We are similar in that we are all homo sapiens. But that | But “similar” is a word, and therefore a value judgment. It exists in the domain of signifiers, not signified. We are similar in that we are all homo sapiens. But that similarity is not enough to draw conclusions about our breakfast preferences. | ||
In the same way that we can calculate the probability of rolling consecutive sixes so, it seems, can we calculate the probability of rain tomorrow, a cut in stamp duty in the spring, or a thirty-point intraday drop in the NASDAQ. | In the same way that we can calculate the probability of rolling consecutive sixes so, it seems, can we calculate the probability of rain tomorrow, a cut in stamp duty in the spring, or a thirty-point intraday drop in the NASDAQ. | ||
This is | This is depends on the artefacts being, in the first place, sufficiently and relevantly similar. The sides of a dice are, to a large degree. Clouds and weather patterns are, to a lesser degree. The conditions propelling the NASDAQ — humans — are not. | ||
But numbers are alluring. They are under our control. They ''behave''. They bend to the spreadsheet’s will. The spreadsheet’s will is our will. | But we notice regularities in the behaviour of the market and we impute to them regularity all the same. And once we do this we can dispense with the messy, ineffable, incalculable domain of signifiers, and perform our operations in the clean, tidy, nomological world of signifiers. We move from the ''physical'' to the ''synthetic''. | ||
For numbers are alluring. They are under our control. They ''behave''. They bend to the spreadsheet’s will. The spreadsheet’s will is our will. | |||
Except, as [[David Viniar]]’s immortal words remind us, the events these numbers represent — the territory for which they are a map — are wont to have other ideas. | Except, as [[David Viniar]]’s immortal words remind us, the events these numbers represent — the territory for which they are a map — are wont to have other ideas. | ||
| Line 35: | Line 37: | ||
{{quote|{{viniarquote}}<ref>explaining why the [[vampire squid]]’s flagship hedge funds lost over a quarter of their value in a week, in 2008.</ref>}} | {{quote|{{viniarquote}}<ref>explaining why the [[vampire squid]]’s flagship hedge funds lost over a quarter of their value in a week, in 2008.</ref>}} | ||
Rolling dice are not like the stock market. | ''Rolling dice are not like the stock market.'' | ||
====The map and the territory==== | ====The map and the territory==== | ||
Mr Viniar’s model, he hoped, would tell him something about the market’s behaviour. The model is the ''map'', the market is the ''territory''. We judge the success of a model by how close its prediction is to our subsequent [[lived experience]]. There is a natural dissonance: models are drawn from past experience, and that is singular, static and unalterable. It is dead. Our future experience is, as far as we know, none of these things. | Mr Viniar’s model, he hoped, would tell him something about the market’s behaviour. The model is the ''map'', the market is the ''territory''. We judge the success of a model by how close its prediction is to our subsequent [[lived experience]]. There is a natural dissonance: models are drawn from past experience, and that is singular, static and unalterable. It is dead. Our future experience is, as far as we know, none of these things. | ||