03-27-2021, 09:55 PM
** 26-Mar-2021 World View: Prediction guarantees
OK, how about this. Generational Dynamics predicts that we're headed
for new world war "soon." Analyzing trends, such as increasing
nationalism and xenophobia in various countries, makes it appear that
the world war will pit China vs US. It seems likely that it will
begin in the next 3-4 years, but it may begin later, with the
probability increasing with each year.
As the saying goes, "it is what it is." I can provide more analysis
to support those views, but I can't say, "war with China will begin on
July 23, 2025." That's impossible. And you're wrong when you say
I've been wrong, since I always use probabilistic language with
indefinite timings. If I name a specific date, then it's a typo. If
you'd like, search through my 2004 postings, and you'll find a place
where I did name a date. I was just starting out, and that was a
mistake, and I learned my lesson.
Back in the early days, I did try to assign probabilities, based on
data I'd collected. See the following:
** Six most dangerous regions in world (20-Nov-2004)
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/w...041120.htm
If you read through to the end, then you'll find that I computed the
probability of a crisis war in 2005 in one of the six dangerous
regions to be about 21%:
If it didn't happen in 2005, then the probability would go up a little
bit each year.
This approach didn't pan out, but it was an interesting approach to
trying to analyze probabilities.
I kept struggling with the concept of assigning probabilities. I
wrote the following article out of frustration:
** A beautiful mind? The world is paralyzed into a 'Nash equilibrium' (17-July-2006)
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/w...17nash.htm
I was trying to use a the concept of a "Nash equilibrium" to try to
explain why you couldn't predict dates and probabilities. I pretty
much gave up after this.
Around that time, I started looking at incorporating the concepts of
Chaos Theory into Generational Dynamics, and I developed the concept
that the start of a war would be a "chaotic event in the sense of
Chaos Theory," meaning that it could happen at any time, and would be
triggered by some random, unpredictable event. (Just as a butterfly
flapping its wings in China could cause a chain reaction leading to a
hurricane in America.) And I developed the concept of a "trend
value," something that's reasonably measureable, that grows worse with
time, where the saying "If something can't go on forever, then it
won't" applies. As time goes on, the probability that a random event
will trigger the chaotic event increases with time (since the trend
value is worsening).
Here's an analogy: A forest fire (chaotic event) can start when a
random spark (also a chaotic event) is applied to dry underbrush.
When the underbrush is wet, then a random spark will have no effect.
But as the underbrush dries out over time (trend value), then the
probability that a random spark (chaotic event) can trigger a forest
fire (chaotic event) increases with time. At some point, as the
underbrush becomes dryer and dryer (trend value), and the probability
that a random spark will start a forest fire increases, even the
tiniest spark can trigger a forest fire.
In the 1930s, tensions between Japan and China worsened constantly
(trend value). In 1937, a random event (chaotic event) occurred where
a Japanese soldier had to pee and got lost in the woods. This random
event triggered World War II: The Japanese accused the Chinese of
abducting him, and military actions began.
It's interesting that once the chaotic event occurred, things happened
very quickly. Within just a couple of months, the "Rape of Nanking"
occurred, for example.
Returning to the forest fire analogy, the underbrush must have been so
dry that once a tiny fire started, it became a huge forest fire very
rapidly.
So today, I'm saying that the underbrush is very dry (trend value), as
measured by rapidly increasing xenophobia and nationalism in many
countries, and all it needs is the right random trigger, a chaotic
event, to start a world war. And so: WW III could start tomorrow, or
next week, or next year, or five years from now. It's impossible to
predict when that will happen, but the underbrush gets dryer each day
(trend value), and the probability that a random event will trigger a
war grows every day.
Cool Breeze" Wrote:> If you have been predicting war since 2003, how have you "always
> been right"? Before you basically made guarantees in your posts
> about the coming war at a certain time. That's the only time I
> ever piped up and objected, precisely because your predictions
> haven't come true, yet (I agree, they may come soon, but I don't
> claim to know like you seem to claim).
> I have said many times that I predict a "likely war with China" as
> well. So I agree with you. But again, you have said in prior posts
> that you guarantee at this point that it'll happen (in 3-4 years
> very likely, and in 10 a guarantee). If you would like to retract
> that, fine, I have no problem understanding that you are
> correcting maybe a prior error in use of language. So please set
> the record straight.
OK, how about this. Generational Dynamics predicts that we're headed
for new world war "soon." Analyzing trends, such as increasing
nationalism and xenophobia in various countries, makes it appear that
the world war will pit China vs US. It seems likely that it will
begin in the next 3-4 years, but it may begin later, with the
probability increasing with each year.
As the saying goes, "it is what it is." I can provide more analysis
to support those views, but I can't say, "war with China will begin on
July 23, 2025." That's impossible. And you're wrong when you say
I've been wrong, since I always use probabilistic language with
indefinite timings. If I name a specific date, then it's a typo. If
you'd like, search through my 2004 postings, and you'll find a place
where I did name a date. I was just starting out, and that was a
mistake, and I learned my lesson.
Back in the early days, I did try to assign probabilities, based on
data I'd collected. See the following:
** Six most dangerous regions in world (20-Nov-2004)
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/w...041120.htm
If you read through to the end, then you'll find that I computed the
probability of a crisis war in 2005 in one of the six dangerous
regions to be about 21%:
Code:
1 - (1-.0432)*(1-.0283)*(1-.0432)*(1-.0436)*(1-.0283)*(1-.0431)
= .2089 = 20.89% ;If it didn't happen in 2005, then the probability would go up a little
bit each year.
This approach didn't pan out, but it was an interesting approach to
trying to analyze probabilities.
I kept struggling with the concept of assigning probabilities. I
wrote the following article out of frustration:
** A beautiful mind? The world is paralyzed into a 'Nash equilibrium' (17-July-2006)
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/w...17nash.htm
I was trying to use a the concept of a "Nash equilibrium" to try to
explain why you couldn't predict dates and probabilities. I pretty
much gave up after this.
Around that time, I started looking at incorporating the concepts of
Chaos Theory into Generational Dynamics, and I developed the concept
that the start of a war would be a "chaotic event in the sense of
Chaos Theory," meaning that it could happen at any time, and would be
triggered by some random, unpredictable event. (Just as a butterfly
flapping its wings in China could cause a chain reaction leading to a
hurricane in America.) And I developed the concept of a "trend
value," something that's reasonably measureable, that grows worse with
time, where the saying "If something can't go on forever, then it
won't" applies. As time goes on, the probability that a random event
will trigger the chaotic event increases with time (since the trend
value is worsening).
Here's an analogy: A forest fire (chaotic event) can start when a
random spark (also a chaotic event) is applied to dry underbrush.
When the underbrush is wet, then a random spark will have no effect.
But as the underbrush dries out over time (trend value), then the
probability that a random spark (chaotic event) can trigger a forest
fire (chaotic event) increases with time. At some point, as the
underbrush becomes dryer and dryer (trend value), and the probability
that a random spark will start a forest fire increases, even the
tiniest spark can trigger a forest fire.
In the 1930s, tensions between Japan and China worsened constantly
(trend value). In 1937, a random event (chaotic event) occurred where
a Japanese soldier had to pee and got lost in the woods. This random
event triggered World War II: The Japanese accused the Chinese of
abducting him, and military actions began.
It's interesting that once the chaotic event occurred, things happened
very quickly. Within just a couple of months, the "Rape of Nanking"
occurred, for example.
Returning to the forest fire analogy, the underbrush must have been so
dry that once a tiny fire started, it became a huge forest fire very
rapidly.
So today, I'm saying that the underbrush is very dry (trend value), as
measured by rapidly increasing xenophobia and nationalism in many
countries, and all it needs is the right random trigger, a chaotic
event, to start a world war. And so: WW III could start tomorrow, or
next week, or next year, or five years from now. It's impossible to
predict when that will happen, but the underbrush gets dryer each day
(trend value), and the probability that a random event will trigger a
war grows every day.
