My goal in this comment is to vet Daniel Vassallo's section on ergodicity. I follow and agree with the setup: > First, you have to understand a very important

My goal in this comment is to vet Daniel Vassallo's section on ergodicity. I follow and agree with the setup: > First, you have to understand a very important concept: in some systems, what’s best for a group is not necessarily what’s best for the individuals who make up the group. In other words, the total wealth of a group of people could be increasing, while almost everyone making up that group could be seeing their wealth diminish. But do the following sentences follow? Do they even make sense? > When this happens, we say we have a non-ergodic system. If the system was ergodic, what’s happening to the collective would also translate to all individuals. I'm pretty sure these sentences don't follow. I am struggling to think of even a charitable interpretation that would make such a connection. This is not out of a lack of interest -- I would like to see a connection. I think I'm more willing than many to find such connections; I have studied EE, physics, SwEng, CompSci, economics, and more. But, alas, I see no connection -- and not even a plausible path to explore to find one. So, after reading only this much of Mr. Vassallo's writing, my BS-detector alarm bells are ringing. I'm going to go read https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ergodic-hierarchy/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ergodic-hierarchy/ instead. Please let me know if I'm missing something. I am genuinely trying to be rational and open to good arguments. I admit that I'm developing a gut-level distaste for Daniel's writing, but I don't want this to unfairly bias me about a possible insight on ergodicity here. P.S. Maybe even though Mr. Vassallo's writing is a stretch, there is a reasonable point to be made? Could someone make it succinctly without the baggage of his larger claim?