First Blog

Schrödinger’s cat* can be expanded to Schrödinger’s universe .   In fact, we could well reason that the universe is, in fact, a rather large probability distribution of entities. Even the smallest probabilities are a part of this – such as those of the cat’s wave equation.   Simplify this notion by asking, “If there is a universe and nobody observes it, does it exist as we observe it?” The simple answer is no, but the deeper answer is this implies time may not exist.  Time may well be an observational illusion of a particular path within this distribution. The path creates its own physics of its unique universe, with the common factor being gravity between them all. This becomes the particular universe observed by us with the path creating its own dimension of time. Bottom line: Time a path-wise artifact.  It is difficult to unshackle thinking from process and therefore from  time .   * From Wikipedia: Schrödinger's cat: a cat, a flask of poison, and a  radioacti

Predictions of elections reside in a world of experts, the poll dancers.   Let’s check ‘em out.   Most predicted a Clinton win by about 3% of the vote.   Nate Silver, the guru of statistics and outcome predictions, predicted chances for Clinton win at 70%. Other outlets predicted a Clinton win at 85%.   Even the odds-makers (bookies) gave her at least 2-1 odds for a win*. Some more so. Indeed, so confident was her team that Hillary Clinton left early from home for her hotel room near their NYC HQ anticipating the prospect of making an early winning announcement.    All were wrong.   Only a very few predicted a Trump win, and they were all discounted.   OK. Analysts will be analyzing away for years, among them the so very many who were wrong. They will conjecture, debate, write articles, write papers, write books, and appear on television, ad nauseam . The point here is not to give our own description of why.   Our point is about the “who.”    The “who” were acknowled

Just as a FYI. The Indians just won game one in the series.  One team had to win. Now, suppose the two teams are evenly matched meaning the probability of either team winning is 0.5.  That is the odds are 50-50. True? Not true?  You decide. Assume no home team advantage - a stretch of your beliefs, I know. With these assumptions, we can compute. A. Suppose the Indians win the first game and both teams are evenly and stay evenly matched. Then the probability of the Indians win the series (best 4 of 7) is about .65. B. If Indians win the first two games, Then the probability the Indians win the series is  about .80. C. If the Indians win the first three games, Then the probability the Indians win the series is  about .94. Yet records indicate in the most recent twelve World series, the team winning the first game has a probability of winning the series is .91.  (Compare with .65.)  So, does this imply the team winning the first game is actually better (and it would have to be

You’ve heard the news about the latest technology, driverless cars and trucks*.   Can it happen?   It has.   Already four states have made it legal.    Accidents have happened, and promoters have added radar to the detection array. Google’s explanations are amusing, calling it a misunderstanding and a learning experience.   But there is yet another serious hurdle.   It is statistical.   Statistics #1.   If suddenly we changed to driverless cars, there would be accidents, lots of them.   The software would require multiple tunings. This takes time and testing; even the process of updating takes time. Accidents would continue.  Scrutiny would increase, the barrage of them keeping this always in mind. On the basis only of accidents and their visual statistics, the program might possibly be abandoned.   But if not... folks would not be driving their cars anymore.   Cars would become mere taxis.   The thrill would be gone.   Car sales would sag, with people replacing them only as