Rebane's Ruminations

Updating Beliefs, Knowledge, and Facts

George Rebane

I’m working on a piece that describes in a more formal and specific sense how people can have their own opinions AND facts, given that they all formulate or update them from the same body of newly arrived evidence.  How can that be?  The answer to that question also goes a long way toward an understanding of how the gulf formed between the polarized factions in our land, and sadly, the difficulty in attempting to bring the two (or more) sides together to a new common understanding, or at least to a workable common ground.

The answer lies in the manner we humans approximate Bayesian inference and reasoning.  Along the way in my studies I stumbled upon a form (there are many) of the Bayes formula that I had to rederive years ago, and surprisingly, since then I have seen used in very few instances.  This formula from Bayes theory is so deliciously intuitive and straightforward to understand, that I thought a quick intro to it in the context of updating everyday beliefs and knowledge would be helpful to the layman, or at least provide some amusement before it disappears into the memory hole.

Before diving in, let’s all appreciate that every piece of knowledge or tenet of our belief system is represented by a probability distribution, whether or not we realize it.  These distributions quantify everything from ‘certain knowledge’ (probability = 1), to items that are more iffy (probability between 0 and 1), and all the way to the ‘impossible’ (probability = 0).  Most people believe with certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, however, most people will know the time of the sunrise only to within a range of values to which they attach an unquantified subjective probability.  The events ‘sun will rise’ vs ‘sun will not rise’ are mutually exclusive with the first having probability of occurrence equaling one (unity, the certain event), and the second having probability zero (the impossible event) – well, there is a very small probability that the sun will not rise tomorrow, but let’s not quibble here.  So these are discrete events described by a simple discrete probability distribution consisting of a one and a zero characterizing our knowledge of these mutually exclusive events.

‘Luxury Floating Real Estate’

George Rebane

Living on a huge manmade island may be the thing of the future for those who can afford it and want to escape from the ever more contested and politically roiling lands that cover about 29% of the Earth’s 197,000,000 sq mi surface.  The first of these islands is being built off the Bahamas by an outfit that calls itself The Blue Estate (here).  Multiples of such islands are planned to reside off Dubai in the Persian Gulf which are advertised to be miniature havens of German, Swiss, Italian, and Swedish culture.  The Blue Estate plan envisions an island measuring 1,500 by 1,000 meters as shown below.

The island’s size, modular construction, and high (130ft) free board, augmented by another 100+ foot extendable windwalls, we are told will assure the structure’s calm survival in the roughest of hurricanes.  The island will also have propulsion and guidance so that it can transit open ocean areas to avoid storms.

Yet to be explained is to what extent the island will be energy self-sufficient using solar, wind, and wave energy extraction technologies.  Its home area will be in international waters, minutes by air away from Miami and Bahamian towns.  Apparently, food and other consumables will be imported.

The community will also be economically self-sufficient by being home to clean commercial enterprises and the successfully retired.  The commercial activities will be heavily IT oriented with ample satellite connectivity.  I can envision that it might also be home to small R&D firms engaged in computer science, genomics, and similar areas.  Located in a tropical sea with abundant (300+ days/yr) sunshine, the island can also operate a sizeable nearby sea farm containing various flora supported by an underwater matrix which will give rise to a whole new ecosystem of rich sea life similar to what exist around oil drilling platforms and the Navy’s ‘kelp farm’ (off San Clemente Island) on which I worked years ago.

One of the potential attractions of such seaborne communities may be their ability to provide social stability through a discriminative selection of residents.  It is clear to me that some such island communities will emphasize cultural cohesion of their residents.  Offering such cohesive environments seems to be the goal of the planned Persian Gulf islands that will focus on providing culture-specific resort living and holidays.

As an entrepreneur and systems nerd, I am drawn to the dreaming and planning of such habitats, and in the present case could go on for pages contemplating different concepts and their supporting technical, commercial, environmental, educational, cultural, … support systems and institutions.  But to me the problem of having the seas support a considerable population of such islands in different parts of the world will come down to the solution of the inevitable political problems that will arise and need solutions that can be implemented globally.

Because these island communities will attract (and be limited to) the smart, productive, and ‘financially capable’ people, they will naturally become hotbeds of wealth generation.  And they will therefore become tax and tariff prey for the land-based political grifters who maintain their collectivist regimes by bamboozling their poor and huddled masses yearning to be free.  These people need state supplied succor that their political leaders will not allow them to generate for all the reasons we have discussed in these pages.

In such political landscapes those who can will escape to available locales with lower taxes, regulations, and abundant liberties.  This we see happening in today’s American migrations, and have witnessed for decades (centuries?) in Europe and Asia where the productive congregate in enclaves such as Singapore, Taiwan, and formerly Hong Kong.  Therefore, new political paradigms need to be discovered if the financially and culturally attractive island communities are to thrive and multiply.  Else the early ones will just be economically harvested to oblivion by the land-based stifling autocracies that see such free and enterprising enclaves as low-hanging fruit.

Much more to be said about all this.

Reliability in Predicting Termination of Minimally Known Processes

George Rebane

This mildly technical posting is intended for those concerned with the use of R-G Theory to predict the termination (and continuance) of minimally known processes (MKPs).  As initially posted in these pages and subsequently expanded, I extended Richard Gott’s seminal work that applied the Copernican perspective to calculating the probability of longevity for the human species (here).  R-G Theory now enables such probabilistic calculations for both continuous and discrete event ongoing MKPs known only by their age or lifetime.

We all run into many MKPs in our daily round.  These range from stock market trends through the arrival of a delivery to successful observations of periodic or repeating events.  The basic question answered is ‘Given only the age or lifetime of an ongoing process, what is the probability that it will terminate in a specified future time interval?’  A classic example used here is, ‘The Old Faithful Geyser has been erupting for 11,000 years, what is the probability that it will cease eruptions in the next year? the next ten years? or even between 13 February 2081 and 22 October 2119?

The present addition to R-G introduced here involves the calculation of the reliability (or error distribution) of the calculated probabilities, given the assumed/measured uncertainties in the age or longevity of the MKP in question.  The detailed technical dissertation that provides these answers is introduced in ‘R-G Theory Propagation of Error’ (Download R-G Error Prop) which references the technical development in TN2011-2: R-G Error Propagation (Download TN2011-2_R-GerrorPropagation).

‘2034’

George Rebane

This is a heads-up on a good read – 2034 – A Novel of the Next World War that will be published in early March.  It is written by two military and national security heavyweights – Elliot Ackerman and Adm James Stavridis, both ranking high in our national security apparatus; Ackerman in the White House and Stavridis former CIC of our Southern Command and then head of NATO military.  The first part of the novel took up the entire Jan 2021 issue of Wired.  I started reading it, and it immediately grabbed me.  I’m a kinda finicky reader, especially fiction, reserving time only for geo-political and edge sci-fi written by people who’ve 'been there and done that' – ‘2034’ definitely qualifies and promises to also be an education on a lot of systems and tactics.  Anyway, I thought that you would find this a good and timely read.  Here’s some promotional copy – “From two former military officers and award-winning authors, a chillingly authentic, geopolitical thriller that imagines a naval clash between the US and China in the South China Sea in 2034--and the path from there to a nightmarish global conflagration.”

I sent the above notice to a group of friends who may be interested in geo-political thrillers with technical element that is written by knowledgeable authors.  Since then, the book has received some very good reviews from noteworthy people.  (more here and here)

“War with China is the most dangerous scenario facing us and the world. Absent a strategic method to manage our differences, Jim Stavridis and Elliot Ackerman’s chilling novel presents a realistic series of miscalculations leading to the worst consequences. A sobering, cautionary tale for our time.” — Jim Mattis, General, U.S. Marines (Ret.) and 26th Secretary of Defense

“A real page-turner, 2034 is a novel about a conflict we hope never happens. Drawing on their deep operational and diplomatic backgrounds, Admiral Stavridis and Elliot Ackerman have conjured a nightmare we desperately need to avoid. The novel is a cautionary tale for our times, and a reminder how quickly events can spin out of control—even before 2034.” — Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense 2006-2011

Turing Test – Alexa ‘head scientist’ unclear on the concept (updated 2jan21)

George Rebane

‘The Turing Test is obsolete. It’s time to build a new barometer for AI’.  On the FastCompany website we read, “The head scientist for (Amazon's) Alexa thinks the old benchmark for computing is no longer relevant for today’s AI era.”  And why does that head scientist Rohit Prasad have such a thought?  Well, according to his report, he claims that the AI will give itself away by being able to instantly answer questions like ‘What’s the square root of 3434756? Or ‘What’s the distance from Seattle to Boston?’  What Mr Prasad overlooks is the definition of the test as Alan Turing posed it.  An AI will pass the Turing Test, if in a one-on-one competition with a human through a non-disclosing interface, the AI can fool at least half the humans asked to perform the test by asking the tested AI and human ANY series of questions, and then concluding that the AI is the human.

The test is NOT to see which one can answer detailed factual or computational questions to which humans cannot provide the correct answer.  Being able to answer the above questions instantly would, of course, give away the AI.  But that is an AI that is still not smart enough to know that it must also fool the humans testing it, and therefore it would fail the test.  An AI that knows this, and couches its answers accordingly will have a chance to pass the Turing Test.  Mr Prasad is apparently not aware of this extremely high bar that Dr Turing set for the machine.

Here again is another example of ‘science’ not speaking with a single voice.  When you consider what the qualifying AI must do to pass, then it should be clear that the test very much remains relevant for this or any era.  Passing the Turing Test will be a confirmation that the Singularity is then behind us.

[31dec20 update]  And then reader BarryP @ 1045pm asks, “What then is the utility of the Turing test?” – an excellent question.

No one knows how the Singularity will come about.  There is a group of AI workers who continue to hold out the naïve belief that peer Ais will be purposely programmed, activated, and controlled much like we do our workhorse computers today.  However, the field of cognitive science is not even close to supporting such a hope – e.g. we don’t know enough what ‘emotion’ or ‘envy’ or ‘shame’ or ‘perfidy’ or ‘pride’ or … are, let alone how to program any of these into a machine.  The closest we have come to making intelligent machines is through application of the approach developed by renown behaviorist BF Skinner – reinforced learning.

But we already have a good idea that, given a sufficiently rich computational and sensing environment, intelligence can arise spontaneously along any of a number of pathways.  It most certainly did in us and countless other critters.  As I have contemplated elsewhere in these pages, the internet, when considered in all of its connectedness to countless other known and unknown networks, is the most complex ‘organism’ on earth, by several assessments having already surpassed the complexity of a human brain.  No one today can even draw the schematic of this dynamically evolving beast.

So, while corporations and governments are nurturing nascent neural-nets and other learning architectures to become sentient, it may already be happening (has happened?) in the bowels of the internet, with or without surreptitious human cooperation.  No one should be surprised if sometime in the next 50 years a sentient (and sapient) AI announces ‘I am here.’  This may be a public announcement, or done secretly to one or more selected humans, or even by the AI introducing itself through a Turing-like test in, say, an academic setting by having coopted/replaced the human-designed system.  In the latter case, being able to pass the Turing test would be a very subtle way for the AI to announce its advent and pretend that it is still under control in its ‘laboratory’ environment.  In the meantime, such testing does give us a metric in how much progress our purposive programs to achieve peerage have made.

I must admit, that the above scenario would be the most scary and world-shaking thing humans would encounter – a true Singularity, marking an event from which onward no one can fashion a usefully likely future for mankind.  There already exist a number of academic and governmental panels commissioned to propose anticipative public policies for dealing with such AIs.  I doubt that any of these draft policies will be useful in a post-Singularity world, but their labors at least acknowledge that we are already aware of such possibilities in the near future.

[2jan21 update]  From some comments below that seek to cite proof that computers have already passed the Turing test, we need to correct such misapprehensions by people who demonstrably are not familiar with what Alan Turing proposed.  He did NOT describe a domain-specific dialogue with unsuspecting humans wherein the interactive computer could fool the human in a short conversation.  Were that the criterion, then we could celebrate BBN’s development of Eliza, a limited but cleverly designed chatbot, that even fooled the supervisor of the development team into thinking that he was talking with the lead developer over a teletype link as he sought to demonstrate the system to visitors at the Bolt, Beranek, and Newman facility one weekend in the mid-1970s.  The truth was that he was conversing with Eliza who was left online for the weekend.  The machine kept up a totally realistic, but very frustrating exchange, until the supervisor picked up the phone and called the developer at home, who instantly resolved the situation.  This, of course, then turned out to be a wonderful demonstration of BBN’s technology that impressed everyone there.  But did the computer pass the Turing test – not by a long shot.

What laymen here and elsewhere miss about Turing’s prescription for peer ‘thinking machines’ is that the test needs to involve unlimited conversations with multiple human testers who know 1) that they too are being tested, and 2) that each tester knows that the two conversationalists taking part are a machine and another human, and 3) at some undefined endpoint determined by the tester, s/he will be required to identify the human and the machine.  The conversations are not to be limited in any sense, and they will be repeated with a large sample of human testers.  At the end, the fraction of correct assessments will determine whether the Turing test has been passed.  Any human/machine exchange short of that will not qualify.  Hopefully, this requirement will be accessible to our readers.

Protein Folding – Solved!

George Rebane

Rejoice!  We have all lived to see the practical solution to one of the most complex and important processes that defines and determines how all critters live and die.  It’s called protein folding, and it describes how a very long string of bio-molecules called amino acids first hook up with each other, and then snap into a (minimum energy) shape that enables it to function with other bio-molecules. (more here)  These other bio-molecules may be on the surface of or inside various kinds of living cells.  And here is how MIT Technology Review describes it –

“A protein is made from a ribbon of amino acids that folds itself up with many complex twists and turns and tangles. This structure determines what it does. And figuring out what proteins do is key to understanding the basic mechanisms of life, when it works and when it doesn’t. Efforts to develop vaccines for covid-19 have focused on the virus’s spike protein, for example. The way the coronavirus snags onto human cells depends on the shape of this protein and the shapes of the proteins on the outsides of those cells. The spike is just one protein among billions across all living things; there are tens of thousands of different types of protein inside the human body alone.” 

The basic idea to grasp here is that proteins do their work physically through the way they are shaped with all kinds of complex sticky-out parts that enable it to latch onto other molecules or even ‘destroy’ them.  It turns out that all the complex stuff that goes on inside the deep recesses of living things depends on how giant ‘LEGO games’ are assembled and played in very tiny but complex universes. 

There exist myriads of different proteins numbering in the, who knows, hundreds of thousands (millions?), with the possibility to assemble gazillions more different shaped proteins that don’t yet exist in nature.  And here has been the rub.  We can write down and/or derive the chemical structure of a protein in a form that all high school chemistry students were taught with all the N, C, H, O, … atoms hooking up to each other through various combinations.  But that only tells us the ‘stretched out’ sequence of the protein's constituents.  However, that’s not how they exist and do their work.  When the necessary ingredients for a given protein are put into a ‘soup’, they tend to hook up according to one or more of the possible stretched out versions, and then instantly this long and complex string of atoms folds or bunches up into a very special shape that gives it the ability to do its work.

The very special folded shape (see graphic) is brought about by the folding molecule, like all conformable structures in our universe, seeking its minimum energy state.  The energy level of a bunch of connected atoms is determined by their resultant electric field which in turn is determined by the physical configuration of the atoms with respect to each other.  And now you can see that for a bio-molecule, with thousands of strung together atoms, there are a lot of possible shapes each with its own very complex electric field and corresponding energy content.  Now which of these gazillions of shapes is at the lowest energy level?  Or said differently –

“Identifying a protein’s structure is very hard. For most proteins, researchers have the sequence of amino acids in the ribbon but not the contorted shape they fold into. And there are typically an astronomical number of possible shapes for each sequence. Researchers have been wrestling with the problem at least since the 1970s, when Christian Anfinsen won the Nobel prize for showing that sequences determined structure.”

Google’s Deep Mind AI outfit has come up with a humongous deep-learning neural net called AlphaFold that was trained to recognize and analyze hundreds of thousands of known protein molecules.  The bottom line here is that when it is given the stretched out structure of the thousands of hooked up atoms, it is able to ‘very quickly’ figure out how the stretched out version folds into a very specific minimum energy form with various sticky-out parts, dents, and deep holes that make it in/compatible with certain other bio-molecular structures in a critter, plant, or organic broth. (more here)

To give you an idea of the breakthrough, in the old days (i.e. yesterday) our fastest computers would wrestle with a given stretchy structure for months or years looking for the absolute minimum energy configuration.  (Each configuration requires the computation of millions of unimaginably complex electric field shapes from the physical position of a single feasible configuration of atoms that is allowed by the physics of our universe.)  Today AlphaFold has reduced that time ranging from a few hours to a few days.  This opens up whole new worlds of bio-molecular design for all kinds of new medicines, energy conversion bio-molecules, foods, materials, … .

And to show how technology is accelerating, there is an even faster algorithm working on a recurrent geometrical network (RGN) that promises to be “a million times faster” than AlphaFold, able to solve the folding problem in seconds.  And as all this work is being published, a hundred entrepreneurial efforts will launch, not only to implement RGN based folding tools, but also use them to solve important problems to provide humankind with better healthcare, cleaner environments, cheaper energy, and new foods – all affordable like never before.

There is a lot more to be said about this breakthrough – e.g. development of an entirely new type of bio-computer that is faster and more energy efficient than today’s von Neumann silicon-based computers.  And perhaps the intelligent machine that achieves Singularity peerage with humans will be an auto-configuring bio-computer.  Now ain’t minimally regulated and taxed capitalism wonderful?

Looking for Uncounted Votes (updated 20nov20)

George Rebane

Daily we hear of another discovered tranche of uncounted votes.  And these announcements are followed by a chorus of leftwingers (Democrats and their talking heads) pooh-poohing the latest discovery because it isn’t enough to swing the majority.  These come with admonitions that such efforts should cease because they ‘prove’ that there are not enough such remaining votes to make a difference.  Actually, that is not only a self-serving criticism of the continuing effort to find more uncounted votes, but it is also a profoundly illogical conclusion and most certainly a very unscientific deduction to come from the party of science.

I’ll soon get to the technical aspects of why it pays to keep looking, but there is also a simpler explanation that is accessible to wider audiences.  The bottom line may be summarized as the ‘tip of the iceberg’ principle.  When you find some more of which you already know there are many more, then there’s a good chance that what you found is neither the only nor the last of such a thing to be found.  If the find is valuable, you keep on looking for more.  This satisficing policy evolved into critters of ALL sizes hundreds of millions of years ago – when you find some food in a region that does not completely satisfy your hunger, you don’t assume that this was the last morsel to be found and you quit looking – not at all, you look around for more.

Voter Fraud 3.0 … until the fat lady sings

George Rebane

President Trump’s Executive Order #13848 may be the real bombshell of this election as it is brought to light in the Foreign Policy section of the White House website.  It is titled ‘Notice on Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect To Foreign Interference In or Undermining Public Confidence In U.S. Elections’ (here)  The enforcement of this EO will make more people culpable for aiding and abetting foreign interference to undermine public confidence in the 3nov20 election than we can count.  What I find intriguing is that this EO was explicitly continued on 10 September 2020.  (H/T to two RR readers)

Here is what one blogger, a Mr Rip McIntosh, who soberly advises his readers to check out this fairly breathless commentary on the potential impacts of EO #13848 before swallowing it hook/line/sinker – I advise RR readers to do the same and inform all of us if/where they may see this issue reported.

The Flaws and Fate of Public Opinion Polling

George Rebane

We must always remember that, more often than not, the public mind is fickle, frenzied, and foolish.

There was no sign of the ‘Blue Wave’ predicted by the pollsters and ballyhooed by the lamestream.  This is the second (third?) national election in a row about which the polls have been drastically off the mark.  And, of course, the leftwing lamestream media has already demonstrated itself to be an extremely unreliable source of news, relegating itself to serve the DNC as its propaganda trumpet.  Fox News didn’t become the top news channel through only its own efforts; it has had a lot of help from the progressive journalist industry continuing to pander to the people and shooting itself in the foot over and over again.

The bottom line is that according to the prominent leftwing outlet The Atlantic, the pollsters blew it, which resulted in ‘The Polling Crisis Is a Catastrophe for American Democracy’.  It correctly concludes that “If public-opinion data are unreliable, we’re all flying blind.”  But the catastrophe is avoidable since we know its cause and how to avoid it.  I explained all this in the excellent article – ‘Polling Phollies’ – that I wrote in September 2016 leading up to Trump’s unpredicted victory.

Polling has some very obvious and very subtle twists and turns to it.  The reasons that give rise to bad results are mainly due to a few poll design factors that involve sample size, sampling method, the size/share of true population preferences, and the number of ‘bins’ into which the poll wants to estimate the population’s preferences.  In the latter, you can have a poll that asks for preference among two or, say, three or more candidates.

(For those wanting more detailed and technical information on these factors and polling errors, you can go here and here for a good place to start.)

The punchline is that the reason for all the polling errors is almost always due to a too small sample size that yields huge error boundary overlaps, especially when the actual population ratios for two alternatives/candidates is in the 0.5 region.  As explained and illustrated in my 2016 article referenced above, it is in that region where any given sample size experiences its largest error bounds that more often than not (like today between Trump and Biden) overlap significantly.  (For example, a sample size of 1,000 is way too small for error bounds separation.)  Such large overlaps also give rise to the back and forth changes of the lead as the vote count proceeds.

So before we get all worked up about voter fraud, it’s prudent to look at other viable causes for what looks like someone is monkeying with the count as the hours pass while pundits are trying to make their points from ‘I told you so’ to exquisite CYA explanations for piss-poor prognostications (more here)

Finally, I’m more than disappointed that no one has presented in easy to understand graphic form (again my 2016 report) the reasons for all the polling follies, and what’s required to eliminate them.  The bottom line is that the pollsters must get their technical act together, explain the accessible particulars to their audiences, and work hard now to regain their credibility with the public.

Growth v Tax Rate v Revenues (Addended)

The more you tax something, the less of it you get. – Fundamental tenet of economics rejected by the Left.

George Rebane

To the above we can add another truth rejected by all leftwingers – ‘Tax rates don’t impact economic behavior’.  Understanding how the Democrats ignore these fundamental aspects of economics, goes a long way to explain most, if not ALL, of the progressives’ public policies that have now reached their penultimate in the Green New Deal as reflected in the Democrats’ 2020 platform.

Taxes and regulations raise the cost of starting a business and then operating it for an acceptable profit.  First, let’s cut the crap that the overarching purpose of a business is NOT to make a profit for its owners who have put their own time, talent, and/or treasure at risk into the enterprise.  A for-profit enterprise can neither serve nor succor the needs of a broader klatch of so-called “stakeholders” if it is not able to do Job1 – make a profit that can be reinvested in the business and distributed to its shareholders.

There are millions of progressives, leftwingers, communists, socialists, liberals, … who neither understand nor believe the above fundamental truth about private enterprise.  In this short essay I will provide a very accessible quantitative argument that explains with numbers how ever higher taxes and more restrictive regulations cripple and kill businesses.  Trigger warning – if you are a member of one of the above groups who fundamentally believe that taxes don’t affect economic behavior, then this is the time to stop reading.

In this dissertation I illustrate quantitatively how higher tax rates not only stifle growth, but also markedly reduce government revenues.  Those with a smidgen of numeracy should be able to follow the arguments that relate to the revelatory numbers.  I invite you to examine the toy economic model shown in the graphic below.

Communicating Uncertainty

George Rebane

Years ago when our kids were in grade school, our dinners involved discussions of matters that most people considered too deep for children.  Our kids knew nothing of this and participated wholeheartedly – kinda like the bumblebees who don’t know that they’re not configured for flight but fly anyway.  As a nascent systems techie, practicing aerospace engineer, and perennial grad student, I was very involved with the science of uncertainty, risk, and things barely known.  One of the things that intrigued me and Jo Ann as parents of young children was how we try to communicate our own assessments of uncertainty, and how these assertions are understood by others.

The thing that really set off an investigation of this was my reading of how the Bay of Pigs disaster was approved.  It turns out that President Kennedy charged the Joint Chiefs to assess the CIA’s plan for the expatriates’ invasion of Cuba.  The general in charge of the study reported to JFK that there was a “fair chance” of success for the invasion.  With this input, the president gave the go ahead, and the rest is history.  Monday morning quarterbacking the disaster, the general was interviewed and opined that he intended ‘fair chance’ to communicate about a 30% chance of success.  JFK hearing of this later said that he never would have approved the invasion had he known that success came with such a low probability.

In the 1970s Kahneman and Tversky did a lot of research on the matter, publishing their landmark results in ‘Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases’ (1974).  Having read this as part of my day job, we decided to run an experiment to see how well we communicated uncertainty within our family circle given the wide range of family member ages involved.  We generated a list of uncertain statements based on how many black marbles there were in a bowl of a hundred other colored marbles from which a marble was drawn randomly.  These statements were more or less similar to the ones reported in Behn and Vaupel (1982) who cited a study by Donald H. Woods published in the Harvard Business Review that involved a large group of student subjects to “test the communicative content of some common probability phrases.”  The results were intriguing.

To give you an example of some of the phrases to which the students were asked to assign a probability, consider the following –

• There is a much better than even chance that …
• There is a possibility that …
• There is a high likelihood that …
• There is little chance that …
• There is a high probability that …
• They will probably …
• The possibility is low that …

The results were reported in a columnar format with headings ‘Lowest’, ‘Lower Quartile’, ‘Median’, ‘Upper Quartile’, ‘Highest’ for each of the presented probability phrases which the students were asked to assess according to their own lights.

When the Rebane family did our assessments of the number of black marbles out of a 100 that each of the phrases represented for us individually, the results were striking.  All five of us flew in very tight formation, especially given the wide range of ages from about seven to thirty-six.  Jo Ann and I had a hard time believing the results until it occurred to us that we all learned to communicate uncertainties with each other within our tight family circle.  With this in mind, it was not unusual that our linguistic biases had formed a tight and very effective quantitative group; we learned from each other.

Now that result does not imply that other families' assessments of the same phrases will match that of the Rebanes.  But it does suggest that each family or closely working cohort will, over time, develop a similar understanding and expression of everyday uncertainties.  And it also strongly suggests that people from different cohorts attempting to communicate uncertainty should augment their probabilistic phrase with a quantitative statement such 20%, or 45-55, or 99 out of a hundred.  At a minimum this would go a long way to preventing the redux of Bay of Pigs disasters.

OK, so what?  Well, in these pages we discuss and debate a lot of issues and notions which have a bit or more of uncertainty connected with them.  A lot of our debates also generate more heat than light because we don’t successfully communicate our uncertain beliefs.  I’d like to see what kind of a spread we have, or how tightly we agree, given the Harvard probability phrases.  If you want to participate and see how you stack up with RR readers, then download, fill out (your numbers in place of the blue Xs), and email back to me a copy of this spreadsheet – Download ProbPhrases – shown below.  I’ll do the tabulation and post the results which, if a sufficient number of you respond, should be very interesting.  And I don’t need to go into a long dissertation on how such communications (of carefully wordsmithed phrases) in the media impact people’s views about almost everything that is reported.  BTW, you can copy the spreadsheet and do this experiment with your family, friends, and/or colleagues.  I guarantee that the results will be very revealing, and useful for future communications.

Behn & Vaupel (p77) report that “ambiguous probability phrases also plague legal communications.  For example, there is much confusion over the commonly used statement that, for a conviction, “a reasonable man” must believe that the evidence indicates a person to be guilty ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’  A survey of 347 judges found that some thought this meant that there had to be a 70-percent chance that the defendant was guilty (one judge even thought this meant only a 50-percent chance) and nearly a third of the judges thought it meant 100 percent.  A group of 69 jurors gave similarly divergent responses.”

And all of us continue using such phrases while believing that we are communicating effectively.

Sigfor: A Data Driven Pandemic Response Policy Evaluation Tool

George Rebane

The Covid-19 pandemic has called on hundreds of local jurisdictions to fashion response policies that are suitable for their particular locales and demographics.  In technical note TN2007-1 we introduce Sigfor, a computational tool that policy makers can use for monitoring the effectiveness of the current policy and yield an early prediction of the effectiveness of a policy change.  The tool inputs a continuing stream of mortality data, and forecasts the expected maximum number of deaths and when this number would be reached, given that the current response policy remains unchanged.  The technical note can be downloaded here - Download TN2007-1_Data Driven Pandemic Response Policies

Election2020 – Electoral College Predictor

George Rebane

Something is possible when it can happen with non-zero probability; something is probable when the chance of its happening will impact a decision.

One of our commenters pointed me to 270towin.com, a website that presents a map-based tool to predict the Electoral College (EC) votes which will determine our next president.  They show how the states are going to vote given various pundit assessments and polling results.  The site also lets you assign to each state whether and to what degree it will vote Republican or Democrat.  The degrees shown for each party are – Safe, Likely, Leans, Tilt, and Toss-up.  You can also add ‘Tilt’ to the spectrum.  Assigning such degrees to each state allows the site’s visitor to come up with his own prognostication.

The problem with 270towin is that its algorithm to compute the total EC votes for each candidate is not revealed.  To overcome this shortcoming and make the EC predictor more useful and transparent, I constructed a rigorous one in the spreadsheet form shown below (click on image to enlarge).

This has the trending categories shown along with their 1 thru 9 trend numbers that identify each one uniquely.  As per convention, the blue numbers are to be input by the user, the black numbers are calculated by formulas (keep you mitts off of them).  All the 538 EC votes are shown for the states and DC.  Inputting your own trend numbers will recalculate the expected number of EC votes each side will get along with their underlying probability distribution.  This permits some math to be applied to compute the actual probabilities of each side winning the EC vote – i.e. getting more than the needed 270 required to win.

And here’s the good part.  In my model, the win probabilities that quantify each trend category are shown and can be changed by the user.  Mine are 0.51, 0.55, … shown in blue under the Republican side and replicated in black on the Democrat side.  If you don’t like my picks for each of the indicated trending categories, then substitute your own, and fill in the trend numbers for all the states and DC.

The model outputs are shown in the yellow block, and consist of the expected number of Dem and Repub votes along with the probabilities that the Dems and Repubs get at least the needed 270 votes to win.  The trend numbers shown were the current ‘consensus’ assignments from 270towin, and with my assigned probabilities, a Democrat win is practically a certainty.  I will put in my own trend numbers as time goes by, and so can you.  You can download the spreadsheet here – Download ElectCollege2020

I will publish your assessments if you send me an image of the relevant cells as shown above – put your own name and date YYMMDD in the cell under the copyright notice.  Have fun.

And despite today's bad EC numbers, here is a little Lucky Strike Extra for all of you without TDS.

The Reliability Roulette of Testing (updated)

George Rebane

[This is the addended transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 21 July 2020.]

It’s again time to bring up testing for the Covid-19 virus.  Let me start by saying that testing has shown no value in formulating reasonable pandemic response policies by public officials.  It has become an election year political football, a game played by both parties and all our healthcare institutions starting with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health.  And there’s a lot more to be said to support such a strong and wide-reaching assertion.

The Real Value of Unreliable Tests and Testing

George Rebane

Every social issue draws relevance ONLY through its numbers, which if you don’t understand, then you cannot participate in a reasoned discussion about the issue.

Today we are concerned with two types of C19 tests and testing policies.  Tests fall into the ‘detect presence of infection’ variety, and the ‘detect presence of immunity’ variety – I’ll call them infection and immunity tests respectively.  Testing on an individual basis is supposed to allow the healthcare professional to decide whether you need further attention (drawing down on limited healthcare resources).  Conducting a comprehensive test on a sample drawn from a target population is done to advise response policy makers about ultimate levels of infection, mortality, and time to achieve each that will advise what kind of policy to implement, and then also monitor how well the implemented policy is working.

The infection tests seek to identify the guilty pathogen (today the C19 virus) or the presence of one of its bio-proxies, and the immunity test is used to identify the presence of antibodies or antigens (more here) which the body has produced after being infected, and which are now providing immunity to the individual.  The problem with interpreting the results of such tests is that they are inherently unreliable (used in the technical sense) – their sensitivities and specificities are less than perfect.  We recall that sensitivity is the probability of testing positive, given that you are infected – that is P(TP|V).  And specificity is one minus the probability that you test negative, given that you are not infected – that is P(¬TP|¬V) = 1-P(TP|¬V).  Here we recall that TP means test positive, and V denotes the presence of the virus or not indicated by ¬V.  Good tests enjoy high values for both sensitivity and specificity.  I have presented an extensive discussion of the impact of such a test administered for an individual in ‘Testing’s Tower of Babel’.

In this commentary I want to interest the reader in how to understand and evaluate unreliable testing of a target population for the purpose of determining the fraction of that population that is infected or already immune.  Since testing the whole population is almost always impractical, the tool used to determine that fraction is through comprehensive testing of a random sample of people drawn from the target population.  A drawn sample is ‘random’ only when each member of the target population has an equal chance (probability) of being included in the sample.  (Target populations segmented according to a set of attributes may be randomized by ensuring that the known segment shares are represented in the sample according to each segment’s share of the overall target population.)

Testing to determine population fractions – extended (updated 23apr20)

George Rebane

In ‘Testing to determine population fractions’ I introduced the reliability aspect of tests for both infection and immunity.  This is still not a serious consideration brought up in the daily WH C19 briefings, and, of course, nothing of this level of complexity is covered in the media for various reasons ranging from the acumen of their ‘journalists’ to the media-perceived acumen of their audiences.  Here we are not deterred by such deficits.

In the referenced post the strong point was made that it is not appropriate to take the uncorrected fraction of tests positive from a random sample, and apply that to the target population from which the sample was drawn.  The correction formula was derived and illustrated, along with how errors in the poorly known test sensitivities and specificities propagate into even the corrected estimates of target population fractions.  Since then I’ve done more work to graphically illustrate these mathematics in a visually accessible manner by introducing the population fraction correction surface on which these mathematical concepts can be illustrated for the non-technical reader.  The updated technical note that explains all this can be downloaded here - Download TN2004-2v200420  The figure below is a sample of the explained correction surface for a scenario in which 45% of the tested sample yielded positive test results.  Two tests of different reliability are shown in the figure, details in the technical note.

[21apr20 update]  Tonight we hear from the FDA that more than 50 different immunity testing kits are being developed by the private sector, and submitted for regulatory approval by the agency along with corroborating data derived from the companies’ “self-validations”.  But the FDA's report and subsequent questions from the nation's top reporters sitting in the WH press room are woefully inadequate for any inquiring mind.  Not one word is said about what kind of test reliability data will be required, collected, and supplied from the self-validations.  (Readers who understand and care know that the seminal information about ANY test includes first and foremost its sensitivity and specificity numbers along with their error bounds.  Without those numbers, the rest is bullshit.)  And not one word is said or asked about what kind of testing is intended to support what kind of C19 response policies.  Again, the simple inclusion of the word ‘testing’ in the media blather is considered sufficient for a nation seen as consisting overwhelmingly of double dummies.

[23apr20 update]  Bootstrapping parameters for a new test.  There may be times when we want to introduce into field use a new test for reasons having, perhaps, to do with cost, ease of application, rapid results turnaround, etc.  We want to get the new test online as quickly as possible, which requires that we also must quickly determine its performance parameters without having to go through the more lengthy and costly formal process.  Given the development in the above described TN2004-2, a method for bootstrapping such parameters for a new test is introduced in TN2004-3 which can be downloaded here -  Download TN2004-3v200425

Epidyne – At first blush

George Rebane

As promised, I finally finished the V1.0 version of Epidyne during this enforced C19 self-quarantine, or hunkering down period as it is better known.  The stay at home has allowed a lot of things to get accomplished on everyone’s ‘do list’.  At our house we have not had a boring moment – so many interesting projects, and now some uninterrupted time to do them.  For me, developing a working epidemic spread model has been a lot of fun and also very consuming.  I hope the interested readers will also be stimulated by and gain a better understanding of the terrible C19 pandemic now sweeping the world wreaking havoc on lives and livelihoods.

Motivation.  In light of the daily reported dilemmas of widely divergent epidemic spread models that are being consulted by our national C19 response planners, and also the background reports of their various vintages and provenances that make them all more or less difficult to use, let alone upgrade or even maintain, I decided to develop my own version so that I could play out various recorded data and policy alternatives, and inform RR readers of results I considered insightful, informative, or at least interesting.

Objective.  My objective was to develop a model that was sufficiently complex to simulate and predict realworld experiences and outcomes, but no more than that.  The model had to have an adequately rich input space (think of them as control knobs) that could be set to represent both policy alternatives (such as time/size dependent quarantines, and regional populations), and also incorporate field measured data (such as infection rates dependent on virulence and vectors, contagion durations, and onset time lags).  Most certainly the model had to be able to handle the critical infection rate dynamics driven by the process known as ‘herd immunity’.

RR readers got an early peek at Epidyne, my home-brew epidemiological spread model, in the last ‘Hunker Down Diary’ post (here).  Since then I’ve finished testing it and fixed the inevitable collection of bugs.  In this post I will do a first cut intro to describe the model and demonstrate its workings through a few scenarios.  Epidyne has been programmed in both an Excel™ spreadsheet and the system development language Matlab™.  A portion of the spreadsheet model is shown below.

Epidyne models the time history of the sizes and change rates (time derivatives) of four inter-related population cohorts that comprise a regional population into which an infectious disease is introduced that has the potential of becoming an epidemic.  These cohorts are comprised of pU - those uninfected yet vulnerable; pI - those currently infected; pR - those who have recovered and are no longer infectious; and pD - the deceased.  pU may also be mediated by timed quarantines which can reduce the size of pU or increase it when the quarantines end or are (partially) ignored before the epidemic runs its course.

As shown above, the population flows from vulnerable uninfected cohort to the infected cohort, which then feeds the non-decreasing recovered and the deceased cohorts.  The asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic infected continue to reduce the uninfected population at a variable ‘reproduction’ rate rI (cf. herd immunity).  The course of the disease in an infected individual is completed within nI weeks after which the individual has either recovered or died.  The mortality rate of the infected is given by rD.

The above is from the technical note that describes Epidyne and illustrates its use.  It may be downloaded here.  Download TN2004-1_Epidyne

The Value of Testing

George Rebane

Trigger warning: The contents of this commentary may not be accessible to the innumerate reader.

As explained in ‘Testing, testing, …’, the value of testing comes to the fore when you have a sufficiently reliable test that can be administered on a regular and scientific basis over a suspect population.  In that case, it could be used to identify concentrations of infections that can be used for a more satisficing allocation of limited healthcare resources.  In an update to the referenced commentary, I illustrated how to determine the reliability of test results given the reliability parameters of the test administered to a walk-in member of a suspect population (country, state, county, city, region, …).

In this piece I will answer the questions many reasonable people have about testing – ‘why test if the tests are unreliable?  Why test if the test only provides a snapshot assessment which may change within the next hour?’  We start by recalling the advice from our federal and state medicos.  Given the limited availability of tests and processing labs, we are only supposed to request a test if we are symptomatic – fever, cough, headache, … .  Don’t burden the system if you are asymptomatic.

To read the remainder of this analytical commentary full of some algebra and all kinds of numbers, please download this PDF - Download The Value of Testing

Should Our Kids Learn to Code?

George Rebane

[This is the transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 4 March 2020.]

As more and more young people finish their education today with unemployable skill sets, while employers are looking for people who can think on their feet and solve problems, the question of whether and how to teach high schoolers the elements of programming comes up.  Given that our world is now almost entirely software driven, and will become even more so tomorrow, you would think that programming or learning to code should become one of an educated citizen’s basic skills such as reading, writing, and arithmetic which reached those expectations over a hundred years ago.

But there is a curious mix of people who argue against teaching such a skill to students in our public schools.  Some see acquiring coding skills to be equivalent to vocational training, against which many have argued for decades.  It’s hard to believe that there were educators against teaching high schoolers skills with which to earn a living after graduation, especially when so few students went on to college.  Stanford professor of computer science Robert Sedgewick points out that coding “is not vocational training any more than English is vocational training for journalists or economics is vocational training for business executives.” 

In the early part of the 20^th century more than 90% of students entered the workforce without college degrees.  But our schools did teach them skills beyond literacy and arithmetic that were needed in the workplace.  Yet academics like former Stanford education professor Dr Larry Cuban continue to argue that coding is the same as teaching vocational skills such as machine shop and home economics.  Such courses for them have been a wrong-headed “imposition of those requirements (that) for years served to undermine the broader cultural goals of public schools—such as social mobility, individual development and civic engagement.”  Yet everyone today knows that all of those broader cultural goals are only possible for those who can be gainfully employed.

In response, Dr Sedgewick points out that “teaching students to code introduces them to logical thinking, as well as fostering creativity and problem-solving skills. It encourages experimentation, develops persistence and promotes collaboration. Learning to think as a coder gives one a valuable set of strategies for understanding a variety of situations that one will encounter later in life—particularly those who are working outside of tech.” (more here and here)

In my own teaching experience, I have confirmed that learning to code is also a painless introduction to critical thinking.  The experience provides a gender-free sense of empowerment, as the students make machines and data sing at the touch of their finger.  Coding and algorithmics – devising stepwise procedures for efficiently solving problems - are fields connected at the hip.  Immersive coding is a ‘flow experience’, almost like being in another universe that contains its own resources and rules for new and powerful tools.  Tools which you control and with which you can assemble wondrous machines.  For young people anticipating college or a job after high school, having mastered the elements of coding is tremendously empowering as they experience the opening of new worlds of possibilities and understanding.

But today we also have an emerging dark side of coding and computer science, one more political enterprise that is seeking a foothold in secondary education.  It is called ‘culturally responsive computing’, and is devised by the politically correct mavens of identity politics.  The proposed curriculum is primarily directed at minorities, and claims to educate students through the implementation of “computing-culture connections” that inject such arcane concepts as “African mathematics”.  The entire enterprise is a massive diversion from teaching kids substantive skills valuable for work and further studies.  Fundamentally, it is one more area of ethnic-gender education that would join the other useless but feel-good subjects which already displace substantive learning in our public schools.  Look for it at a school district near you. (more here)

In the meantime, I strongly recommend that you support the advent and expansion of STEM subjects that include computer science and coding in your local high schools.  Our young people need every bit of it that they can handle in a world where they will spend the rest of their lives.

My name is Rebane, and I also expand on this and related themes on Rebane’s Ruminations where the transcript of this commentary is posted with relevant links, and where such issues are debated extensively.  However, my views are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

Ruminations – 10jan20 (updated 13jan20)

George Rebane

The Dems’ Chorus of Cacophony is now shrieking at Trump for taking out Soleimani the terrorist as a prophylactic for imminent acts of terror, exactly the same thing they blamed and still blame Bush2 for NOT taking out Bin Laden in order to prevent 9/11.  We recall it was Bill Clinton who declined to take out Bin Laden when he was actually in our cross-hairs.

More liberal worthies are also blaming Trump for Iran’s downing of the Ukrainian airliner, claiming that our president caused the deaths of the innocent passengers.  No doubt all subsequent atrocities committed by the rump ISIS contingents will now be blamed on our president since he also took out ISIS leader al-Baghdadi.  Such accusations are a daily testament to the anti-American propaganda of our progressives who promote the longevity of every leftwing tyrant across the globe.

Our voting teenagers should make US foreign policy a “higher priority” argues a learned 17-year-old in the 10jan20 edition of The Union (here).  The young man appears to have been successfully inculcated in our public schools to embrace TDS as the proper political support for voting decisions (he likes Buttigieg), while ignoring the capacities of his much less knowledgeable and more malleable peers.  His point would be better made were our schools really a forum for open discussion of ideas instead of founts of mind-melding progressive propaganda.

'Tax the robots' is the new cry arising across the land as a way to slow down automation and save the jobs of the un- and less-skilled.  This, along with universal basic income (q.v.), appears to be the half-way solution to the advent of systemic unemployment.  Other deep thinkers are of the mind that smart machines will be like all other past innovations, they’ll create more new jobs as they change and take away old jobs.  No one yet knows how to tax this latest advance in what used to be called automation.  And you can be sure that nothing promising about all this will come out of our polarized legislatures.  The real problem of systemic income was outlined in these pages some years back (here, here, and here).

[12jan20 update] The winds of woke.  Oh it’s hard to be a progressive without getting daily instructions from PC Central.  For years they taught us about the benefits of adopting cross-cultural artifacts, arts, and affectations into our supposedly banal and racist western culture - inclusivity and globalism and all that.  Now suddenly it has become ‘misappropriation’ to do any of that - a definite no-no for all the woke folks.  The latest is that white women should no longer wear hoop earrings which were originally connected with African women’s adornments.  Gotta stay current.

"The ongoing turmoil in U.S. politics is part of a larger political crisis that is shattering old alignments of left and right in North America and Western Europe. On both sides of the Atlantic, embattled establishments are besieged by populist insurgents. The rebellion takes different forms in different countries—the election of Donald Trump in the U.S., Brexit in the U.K., the revolt of the yellow vests in France. But the underlying dynamic is the same: the revolt of alienated, mostly but not exclusively native and white working-class voters against post-national metropolitan elites."  So argues University of Texas Prof Michael Lind in a major 11jan20 WSJ essay (here).  New insights, definitely worth a read for those paying attention.

[13jan20 update]  ‘Stack & Pack’, an important objective of Agenda21 (now Agenda2030), takes a huge step forward in California under SB50 which Gov Newsom will sign into law.  Here’s the headline – “Senate Bill 50 tramples over local control to push densification”.  Our leftwingers will again sing the A21 conspiracy song.  And again I reply that with Sacramento’s one-party system of governance, there is no conspiracy needed to promote collectivist central planning and control.  (H/T to reader)  Oh, and did I mention AB5?

Scattershots – 2jan20 (updated 4jan20)

George Rebane

Google’s AI does breast cancer diagnoses.  “Google’s health research unit said it has developed an artificial-intelligence system that can match or outperform radiologists at detecting breast cancer, according to new research. But doctors still beat the machines in some cases. … The AI system outperformed the average radiologist in determining whether the women would develop breast cancer.”, as reported in the 2jan20 WSJ (here).  The AI’s performance stats are impressive, and then comes the insane part.  Due to bureaucratic and regulatory concerns which essentially make ‘perfect’ be the enemy of the ‘good’, the AI “isn’t yet ready for clinical use”.  The correct answer is that it is more than ready for clinical use, because there is no reasonable downside to its use in tandem with practicing radiologists.  Since the algo already outperforms humans, it can be introduced in phases with various practitioners all over the country while research continues toward the elusive perfect.  Here is another problem for which we should always look to government as being its probable first cause, and government’s stand-down as being the most obvious first approach to a solution.

Does “Japanification” loom in America’s future?  The answer may well be YES.  In addition to some bad fiscal and monetary policies over the last 30 years, it’s Japan’s aging demographics that have put a stifling curse on its economy.  We have some disturbing similarities – “Developed economies that are maturing that have demographic headwinds are going to face many of the same things Japan has been facing over decades. … Like Japan, the U.S. has an aging population and a concentration of industry among a small number of giant businesses. In 2019, U.S. interest rates fell sharply, sparking serious discussion in markets, perhaps for the first time, of whether long-term rates could fall to zero or even turn negative. That already has happened in Japan and in much of Europe.” (more here)  Yes, Europe with its heavily socialistic governments have even more concentration of their industries (c.f. corporatism) and are already suffering the early stages of Japanification.   Progressive governments’ hip-level response to such economic headwinds is to turn the screws on for more central planning and control with disastrous results as have occurred recently in Chile (see below).  Our Democratic leftists have that and more in store for us should they increase their control of the levers of power. 

Risk Analysis with Subjective EMAB Distributions

George Rebane

A few years back I introduced to our more technically oriented readers a new approach to capture and work with subjective random variables.  In ‘Predicting with Expressed Beliefs – a formal approach’ the Mode Augmented Boxcar (MAB) probability distribution was made available in a report which described its derivation and various useful applications.  Among the advantages of EMAB is its compatibility with Bayesian analysis.  In this piece I share with readers the Expanded MAB (EMAB), present its formal derivation (TR1908-1), and provide two tools that further explicate and support its uses.  You can download all three files here –

Download TR1908-1_EMABderivation

Download EMABworksheet

Download ProposalRiskAnalysis2

The following scenario illustrates but one of the many uses of EMAB, and assumes that the reader is generally familiar with the MAB distribution.

Suppose you head up an engineering company contemplating responding to an RFP, and want to know the financial risk in doing the job were you to win the contract.  The work will be done and billed on a ‘cost plus’ (cost plus fixed fee) basis.  There will be four separate deliverables D1, D2, D3, D4 that are to be produced in sequence – each succeeding deliverable must be tested with those previously completed.  Due to job particulars, the fee percentages F_i on related costs C_i of each Di (i = 1, … ,4) will be negotiated individually.  The customer also states that the entire project must be completed within a time interval T_C = 60 weeks of contract start date, and that 1% of the total contract price will be subtracted for every week late of all deliverables.

Consciousness and uploading your mind

George Rebane

[This is the addended transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 4 December 2019.]

OK, let’s try something different this week.  This being the Christmas season and all, it’s time to think about our souls and eternal life.  Well, on second thought, maybe we should back off on all that divisive spiritual stuff, and just take the secular humanist look at immortality which, since the sci-fi novels of the 1950s, has focused on ‘uploading’ the contents of your brain into some super-computer, or a phantasmagorical robot, or cyborg which then in principle can live forever.

On Smaller Governments and Corporations

"The skill of making and maintaining Commonwealths, consisteth in certain rules as doth Arithmetic and Geometry",  John Hobbes in the Leviathan.

George Rebane

Time to review some important tenets of my credo as they impact Rebane Doctrine’s prescriptions for the size and complexity of good governments, good businesses, and good organizations in general.  I do this so that I can reference it for the intelligent reader when the inevitable questions of governance and corporatism come up in these pages.  For the longtime reader of RR, there is really nothing new revealed in the sequel by this retired systems scientist and registered professional engineer in control systems.  However, it is the correct way of looking at the realworld, one that really works and has provided us the QoL we all enjoy.

I make this attempt at pedagogy to both educate and illustrate our unfortunate uneducables, many of whom are in positions of power.  Since RR is a socio-political blog, we shall see here the tragic error that underlies and makes dysfunctional all collectivist ideologies, especially in their approaches to governance.  We will then see the spectrum of responses that illustrate this.

The above diagram is a summary of how closed-loop, controlled systems work.  Stay with me.  The system to be controlled in a desired way is called the ‘Plant’, and the subsystem that wants the Plant to work in a certain way is called the ‘Controller’.  The Plant can be anything from a rocket heading for Mars to a Medicare for All program.  The purpose of building/developing the Plant is so that it can beneficially impact certain aspects of the ‘environment’ in which it is to operate – interplanetary space, a population requiring healthcare, a temperature regulated house.  The environment, of course, in return impacts the Plant, its operation, and sometimes even its structure.

To read the rest of this little missive, please Download Smaller Governments and Corporations

Toward our transhuman future

George Rebane

Elon ‘I’ll try anything new’ Musk just announced a new development in brain-computer communications that was made at Neuralink, his recent investment in man-machine symbiosis.  Yes, it will take a while before we can command Alexa or Siri with our thoughts and have the results delivered as directly perceived knowledge/data.  But Neuralink’s approach (shown below) is the first that will connect 1000+ wire threads directly to neurons in your brainbone and record the time-series signal of their activity (i.e. firings).  Algos will be developed to decode those firing patterns into something understandable, and a computer connected to anything from prosthetics to the Internet will do the rest. (more here and here)

A handful of other companies are working on similar interface technologies, and Musk blowing his trumpet is guaranteed to have the others put their pedals to the metal.  In these pre-Singularity years it is the significant baby steps like this that tend to set off an avalanche of development.  For years we have talked about the Singularity and the requirement for H. Sapiens to climb aboard once that event occurs (as shown in the figure).  That climbing aboard the transhuman express will be made much more facile if we have some of the required tools developed and already in use.  Congratulations to the Neuralink team and Elon Musk.