Cycles

 

It’s Still Rock and Roll to Me

Don't waste your money on a new set of speakers
You get more mileage from a cheap pair of sneakers
Next Phase, New Wave, Dance craze, anyways
It's still Rock and Roll to me

And it’s still Mathematics to me!

I believe that there are historical cycles of  approximately 100 years. I say approximately, because the length of the historical cycle is a random phenomena whose average is 90 ±10 years. Half of a full period of a cycle is thus 45±5 years and 1/6 of a half cycle would thus be on average 8 1/3 years long. If the last Turning (end of a cycle) was in October of 1929, then you would expect an upward slope from approximately 1929 to 1979. And  a downward slope from approximately 1979 to 2029. In the first 1/6 of the first half cycle, e.g. ~1929 to 1938,  there would be slow to virtually no growth and that growth may be virtually indistinguishable from the decline at end of the last cycle. To an observer in the midst of a cycle, it may appear as if the cycle ended sometime in the middle of that period, e.g. 1932 ( i.e. it appears like a lag variable). 

There should be moderate growth for the next 1/6 of the half cycle (~1938 to 1947). There would be twice the rate of growth for the next 1/6 of a half cycle ( ~1947 to 1956) and that rate of growth would be accelerating. There would be almost the same rate of growth during the next 1/6 of the half cycle (~1956 to 1964), but that growth would be decelerating. During the first 1/6 of the next half cycle the growth is declining but the change is virtually indistinguishable from the last 1/6 of the previous half cycle. The rate of decline accelerates during the next 1/6 of a cycle, (~ 1979-1986). The rate of decline virtually doubles during the next 1/6 of the cycle, ( ~1986-2004). The highest rate of decline happens during the next 1/3 of a half cycle, (~2004 to 2020). The rate of decline decelerates during the next 1/6 of the half cycle, (~ 2020-2029). The last phase of the cycle has virtually no growth, just like the first 1/6 of the next half cycle where growth returns.

Yes, the length of each phase can vary. Wars, economic downturns, terrorist attacks, extreme weather  and other random events can occur. What about on average is so hard to understand?

There is a danger zone about 80% through a declining half cycle where things may have gotten so inequitable that revolution against the sovereign can happen. That puts the danger zone at somewhere between 2020 and 2029 where there is a strong possibility that the subjects of the sovereign will say off with their heads.

Standard Deviation

 

A.D.H.D.

Fuck that, eight doobies to the face
Fuck that, twelve bottles in the case nigga. Fuck that
Two pills and a half, wait nigga, fuck that.
Got a high tolerance when your age don't exist

And tolerance is where it’s at!

I would be lying if I said I understood anything that Kendrik Lamar said during the Super Bowl LIX halftime show. I don’t speak Rap. But Kendrick’s lyrics as quoted above are wise beyond words, The language is very rough, but….maybe I am merely showing my age. Tolerance is what engineers call Standard Deviation, the square root of variance. A problem is acting like mean and the midpoint of tolerance squared, variance, are the same. They are NOT, except for the absolute. There are three outcomes to any contest: win, lose, and tie. There is an average, mean of that contest. The average plus the tolerance should include the entirety. But because the mean, average, is defined as half of the absolute, it is confused that this requires that mean be constant, when it is NOT or the tolerance to be NOT constant, when it is. One is subject to growth, the average, and one is NOT subject to growth, the tolerance.

According to L’Hôpital’s rule, the limit of the average is the mean AND the median. But for anything less than the absolute, the mean and median can, and will, be different. The mean of an even number is half of that even number. The mean of an odd number is NOT an odd number, it is half of the original number, which makes it an even number. Thus saying the variance is one third of the absolute, while the location, is half of the absolute seems like it is a contradiction but the mean is subject to growth, and the variance is a constant and is NOT subject to growth.

Mathematically x>μ AND σ=μ/3 is true for the absolute but that does not mean that variance increases as the mean, location, increases. The variance is a constant, but the location can change with growth. The problem is that the limit of N/2, the mean, as N approaches the absolute is the absolute , but the limit of the Standard Error, what engineers call tolerance, the square root of the variance is SE=σ/√N, zero. This is true if the absolute is zero, but it is also true if the absolute is NOT zero, x>μ and σ=μ/3 is true not only for N=0, but it also is true for any value of the number N. There is no contradiction,  The mean is a function and changes. The tolerance is a constant and can NOT change. And apparently by not growing up in Compton like Lamar, I missed that.

Atheists

 

Universal Soldier

He's a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

Not only are Scientists NOT Atheists, but Evangelicals must be Pro-Choice!

Just because the words are different doesn’t mean that it is not the same concept. Scientists say that they are Atheists but they probably also believe in infinity, an absolute. Those are the same thing, just using different words. Not only do scientists believe in an absolute, but they also believe in only one absolute.

Scientists believe in space-time. Space, x,  has an absolute: that is x>0. Time, t,  is related to space by the constant speed of light: c=∆x/∆t .  Speed is always defined as the change in space divided by the change in time. If the speed of light is a constant, then an absolute in space is the same absolute in time. But there is an infinite amount of time, before the time which is Now, and an infinite amount of time after Now. Thus Now is a relative zero but the absolute, infinity, is the same based on the constant speed of light. If space is absolute, and time is based on the same absolute, then there is only one absolute: a “mono” absolute. If you say absolute or theist, then you are effectively saying the same thing.

If time is a relative zero and space is an absolute zero, then scientists and all theists must also believe in choice. The future is merely all choices. The past is only the choices which have been made, but the amount of those choices in the past are the same as in the future. Thus saying that you believe in a future means that you believe in choices. So not only are scientists NOT Atheists but Evangelicals must be Pro-choice if they are not Atheists.

Rules

One, Two, Three

One, two, three
Oh, that's how elementary
It's gonna be
Come on let's fall in love
It's easy
Like taking candy
From a baby.

THREE is not only elementary, but it's also fundamental.

The ancient East Asian painting of the Three Vinegar tasters is supposed to be a representation of 1) Confucius, (Kung Fu Tse); 2) Lord Buddha; and 3) Lao Tse (the founder of Taoism) tasting vinegar from the same jar.

1. Confucius says that the vinegar tastes bitter which demonstrates to him that rules are necessary to impose order over chaos in reality and that it is up to you to impose that order.
2. Lord Buddha says that the vinegar tastes sour which demonstrates to him that all reality has to be endured so that you can pass from reality to the unobserved.
3. Lao Tse says that the vinegar tastes just like it is supposed to taste in reality. There is both reality, the observed, and the unobserved, but they are different to him.

Of the three, I’m on Team Tao. The fact that reality, the observed, is different than the unobserved does NOT mean that one or the other is better, only that they are different. Vinegar tastes how it is supposed to taste in reality, but that doesn’t mean it won’t taste differently in some place other than reality. What is “order” in reality,  might be considered “chaos” in the unobserved.

Common Sense.

 

Common As Muck

You're not Bridget Bardot, I'm not Jack Palance.
I'm not Shirley Temple by any circumstance,
Or Fred Astaire

We're as common as muck.
Bonne chance, viel glück, good luck
Where bold is beautiful, we don't give a damn
Luvva duck, we're as common as muck.

Maybe common sense isn’t very common.

We assume our leaders will have common sense. Leaders on average do approximate the range variable, s,  the tolerance, aka the Standard Deviation, of the absolute. In fact they match it better than most other ages of life in a group. But those who should be leaders are only 60% of the group.  The Voters and Advisors do better at matching the Absolute.

Even leaders can’t perceive the location variable, μ, of the absolute. They pale besides the Nash Equilibrium, whose followers perceive more of the absolute than is actually there. A Nash Equilibrium acts like the Absolute has a median/mean/location that is 120% of its actual value. But by doing so, it ensures that the members of the group are closer to their perception of the absolute.

		s	μ	Absolute Zero	100%	Absolute
Perceived	Young Ward	0.070	NA		0.45	41%
	Voter	0.288	NA	0.041	0.86	90%
	Leader	0.459	NA	(0.042)	1.22	144%
	Advisor	0.288	NA	(0.221)	1.04	90%
	Old Ward	0.070	NA	0.142	0.96	41%
	User Optimal	NA	0.000	1.500	NA	NA
	System Optimal	0.250	NA	0.500	2.91	100%
	Nash Equilibrium	0.500	1.885	0.023	2.91	100%
Absolute		0.500	1.571	0.000	3.142	100%

 

Individuals acting as a group perceive the absolute from their own frame of reference, hyperspace. By acting as if the Absolute is more than what can be perceived, the group can better match their perception of absolute.

But the values in the table for leaders are only the average of all those who could be leaders, not those individuals who are actually chosen as leaders. Individuals within the group of leaders are just as subject to error as anyone else. And even leaders are better at only the range of the absolute, not the Absolute itself. The current allies in MAGA of User Optimalists and System Optimalists don’t come close to the  the Absolute.  That is reserved for Nash Equilibriumists.  Even the common sense of leaders is NOT very common, and it definitely is not absolute.

Discontinuity III

 

Crossroads

I went down to the crossroads
Fell down on my knees
Down to the crossroads
Fell down on my knees
Asked the Lord above for mercy
Take me, if you please

A discontinuity is a crossroads

In a speed-volume curve of traffic or water flow, there is a discontinuity at which laminar/uncongested/orderly flow becomes turbulent/congested/chaotic flow. At this discontinuity there is a crossroads in the behavior of the flow before the discontinuity and the behavior of the flow after the discontinuity. The flow approaches the crossroads/discontinuity from reality, from Point D in the figure below.

At the discontinuity, Point E, it can remain in reality on the left side of the figure, and move to the curve connecting Point A with Point E, from the orange curve to the blue curve. However that requires a rotation by 3/2 π  and this requires that the equation describing the flow from Point D to E to become the logarithm of a negative number, and that behavior is undefined. It can move to the curve connecting Point E to Point at C, also moving from the orange curve to the blue curve, a mirror of the original behavior, but that requires moving the wrong way on a one-way link. It can move to the curve connecting point E with Point B and stay on the orange curve. That is a continuation of the original path, but it requires moving to the right side of the figure, which is NOT observable reality. It is unobservable behavior. At the crossroads any of those behaviors is possible, but each has problems. But moving from reality to unobservable flow seems more likely at the crossroads than any of the other possibilities.

Ages

 

What A Piece of Work Is Man 

What a piece of work is man
How noble in reason
How infinite in faculties
In form and moving
How express and admirable
In action how like an angel
In apprehension how like a god
The beauty of the world
The paragon of animals

But man is STILL an animal, NOT a God.

The lyrics above are from the musical Hair, but they are also a speech in Hamlet. The Riddle of the Sphinx in Oedipus postulates that there are 3 ages of man as defined by how many legs are used: all fours as an Infant; two legs as an Adult; and three legs, 2 legs plus a cane, in Old Age. Game Theory would suggest that there are five ages of man, if he is trying to act as he perceives the absolute, God. For the first 1/6 of life, you are a ward of the state. This corresponds to the legal voting age in the US of 18 years. The next 1/6 of your life, e.g., from 18 to 36 years old you have become an adult,  a voter. In the next two 1/6s,  from 36 to 72, you can be not only a voter but a leader. In the next 1/6 of your life, from 72 to 90, you can be an advisor to, but not yourself, a leader.. In the last 1/6 of your life you have returned to be being a ward, say from 90 to 108 years old. (You might make a contribution, but you are not expected to do so, and you might be senile anyway.)

The US Constitution does set a minimum age for President as 35 years old, even though the minimum age for Senator is 30 years and the minimum age for being a member of the House is 25 years old. Leadership positions in the Congress are by seniority so they have only a de facto lower age limit. There are no lower age limits for judges but is rare for anyone to be nominated without a history which implies a de facto lower age limit. But leadership roles in the Congress do NOT recognize the upper or lower age limits. Nor are upper age limits in place for judges. Retirement age is normally 65 and at most 70 years old for Social Security. The age of Minimum Required Distributions for IRAs is currently 73.

So the age limits are roughly consistent with common practices. Maybe it would be appropriate to consider upper age limits? Why were upper age limits not set by the Founding Fathers in the US Constitution? In the late 1700s, at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the age of life expectancy was so low, nature enforced its own upper age limits, so any Constitutional upper age limits seemed unnecessary. Now that medical science has advanced, maybe it is time to start thinking about the upper age limits, in addition to term limits. https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2024/09/ceilings-ii.html