5 ms·

It sounds like an implication based off of an axiom but it is not. It is a implication using probability. I just glossed over it. Here's a better way to word i

It sounds like an implication based off of an axiom but it is not. It is a implication using probability. I just glossed over it. Here's a better way to word it. IF humans create many forms complex and abstract systems which is basically a bunch of rules and concepts put together into a category called software... and if most of these systems end up being over-complex.... Then if we do the same thing of creating a bunch of abstract rules and concepts into a system and give it a different name... lets call it "finance" then by probability the same thing will likely happen again. There, let me know if you get it. Apologies for being vague. Basically humans tend to create overcomplicated systems when given an abstract universe to play with, finance and software are both such an abstraction. It is both an intuitive property and a statistical one as I have shown above.

guerrilla 7y ago
There's nothing to get here. > most of these systems end up being over-complex You've provided no evidence for this, and I give you the entirety of mathematics as a counterexample considering it is a quantifiably as simple as possible at every step.
- crimsonalucard2 7y ago
  I can't give you exact evidence for over-complexity as the way we're using it in this topic is sort of hand wavy and not formally defined. Mathematics is different. It is axiomatic and exact. In the world of proofs and logic, I wouldn't call anything overly complex. Theorems are necessities that arise from axioms. There's even debate on whether or not these systems are actually designed. Maybe they're existing properties of the world that are discovered and therefore outside of the topic of this conversation as we're mostly referring to systems created by people. Either way, I'm talking about the worlds outside of mathematics and logic. Science, statistics and design. This world is rife with over-complexity. I can't prove it, but it should be intuitive. If your a normal person you can most likely think of many, many examples where systems created by people are seemingly over-complex. If you can imagine this, then I would say for this informal dialogue that is pretty good evidence for the case that overly-complex systems are abundant.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  I can't give you exact evidence for over-complexity as the way we're using it in this topic is sort of hand wavy and not formally defined. Mathematics is different. It is axiomatic and exact. In the world of proofs and logic, I wouldn't call anything overly complex. Theorems are necessities that arise from axioms. There's even debate on whether or not these systems are actually designed. Maybe they're existing properties of the world that are discovered and therefore outside of the topic of this conversation as we're mostly referring to systems created by people. Either way, I'm talking about the worlds outside of mathematics and logic. Science, statistics and design. This world is rife with over-complexity. I can't prove it, but it should be intuitive. If your a normal person you can most likely think of many, many examples where systems created by people are seemingly over-complex. If you can imagine this, then I would say for this informal dialogue that is pretty good evidence for the case that overly-complex systems are abundant.
  - guerrilla 7y ago
    I am not seeking your advice. I am pointing out that you did not support your claim that financial instruments are unnecessarily complex. I think financial instruments are unnecessarily complex. I do not claim to have justified this judgement. You have claimed to have justified this judgement and failed to do so. I am not seeking a justification. I am pointing this fact out to you for your benefit. It's probably why people downvoted you, not necessarily because they disagree but because your argument was very bad.
    - crimsonalucard 7y ago
      I don’t think people downvote others because of reasoning. People usually downvote strictly from disagreement. People who are disagreeing with me probably work in fin tech. That’s how human psychology works in my opinion. But this is off topic, if you disagree with my opinion on why the downvoting is occurring, then we can agree to disagree, That being said... let’s get back on topic. I am 100% aware of what you disagree with. You don’t disagree with me, you disagree with my reasoning, and what I am doing is lending more detail to my reasoning so that it is more clear the foundations it is built off of. My last statement served only to do this, it is not written to give you advice. You gave a counter example, I stated how your counter example is not what I am referring to. Since i have no scientific proof or statistical evidence proving my point I made an appeal to your intuition. Intuitively if you can imagine many abstract systems we design to be overly complex and if such systems are abundant then it is very likely finance which is also an abstract system we designed holds such a property. Is this reasoning flawed or not? Actually to be honest I think people are voting me down because I used the words: “I have no idea what’s going on” then proceeded to say that someone was completely wrong. Credentials trump logic in human psychology as nobody believes the arguments of someone who has claims he has no idea what’s going on even though his arguments are sound. I think it’s abundantly clear now that I do have greater than expected understanding then what my initial statement implied.

guerrilla 7y ago

There's nothing to get here. > most of these systems end up being over-complex You've provided no evidence for this, and I give you the entirety of mathematics as a counterexample considering it is a quantifiably as simple as possible at every step.

crimsonalucard2 7y ago
I can't give you exact evidence for over-complexity as the way we're using it in this topic is sort of hand wavy and not formally defined. Mathematics is different. It is axiomatic and exact. In the world of proofs and logic, I wouldn't call anything overly complex. Theorems are necessities that arise from axioms. There's even debate on whether or not these systems are actually designed. Maybe they're existing properties of the world that are discovered and therefore outside of the topic of this conversation as we're mostly referring to systems created by people. Either way, I'm talking about the worlds outside of mathematics and logic. Science, statistics and design. This world is rife with over-complexity. I can't prove it, but it should be intuitive. If your a normal person you can most likely think of many, many examples where systems created by people are seemingly over-complex. If you can imagine this, then I would say for this informal dialogue that is pretty good evidence for the case that overly-complex systems are abundant.
crimsonalucard 7y ago
I can't give you exact evidence for over-complexity as the way we're using it in this topic is sort of hand wavy and not formally defined. Mathematics is different. It is axiomatic and exact. In the world of proofs and logic, I wouldn't call anything overly complex. Theorems are necessities that arise from axioms. There's even debate on whether or not these systems are actually designed. Maybe they're existing properties of the world that are discovered and therefore outside of the topic of this conversation as we're mostly referring to systems created by people. Either way, I'm talking about the worlds outside of mathematics and logic. Science, statistics and design. This world is rife with over-complexity. I can't prove it, but it should be intuitive. If your a normal person you can most likely think of many, many examples where systems created by people are seemingly over-complex. If you can imagine this, then I would say for this informal dialogue that is pretty good evidence for the case that overly-complex systems are abundant.
- guerrilla 7y ago
  I am not seeking your advice. I am pointing out that you did not support your claim that financial instruments are unnecessarily complex. I think financial instruments are unnecessarily complex. I do not claim to have justified this judgement. You have claimed to have justified this judgement and failed to do so. I am not seeking a justification. I am pointing this fact out to you for your benefit. It's probably why people downvoted you, not necessarily because they disagree but because your argument was very bad.
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    I don’t think people downvote others because of reasoning. People usually downvote strictly from disagreement. People who are disagreeing with me probably work in fin tech. That’s how human psychology works in my opinion. But this is off topic, if you disagree with my opinion on why the downvoting is occurring, then we can agree to disagree, That being said... let’s get back on topic. I am 100% aware of what you disagree with. You don’t disagree with me, you disagree with my reasoning, and what I am doing is lending more detail to my reasoning so that it is more clear the foundations it is built off of. My last statement served only to do this, it is not written to give you advice. You gave a counter example, I stated how your counter example is not what I am referring to. Since i have no scientific proof or statistical evidence proving my point I made an appeal to your intuition. Intuitively if you can imagine many abstract systems we design to be overly complex and if such systems are abundant then it is very likely finance which is also an abstract system we designed holds such a property. Is this reasoning flawed or not? Actually to be honest I think people are voting me down because I used the words: “I have no idea what’s going on” then proceeded to say that someone was completely wrong. Credentials trump logic in human psychology as nobody believes the arguments of someone who has claims he has no idea what’s going on even though his arguments are sound. I think it’s abundantly clear now that I do have greater than expected understanding then what my initial statement implied.