macsga, indeed my theory as to why MA doesn't believe in the existence of TPTB is because he is only motivated by data and what he can model. He has often reiterated that opinion is bullshit. So he sees that such conspiracy isn't necessary to describe the system. My counter argument is that he can't fully understand without incorporating that conspiracy into the model, which is why I believe he doesn't grasp the importance of bottom-up (grassroots) exploration of new frontiers, e.g. geographical escapes of lore and perhaps crypto in this current technological unemployment shift to post-industrial, non-fixed capital age (which of course threatens the interests of the old world capitalists who run the current industrial world).
1. Having the "blessed" opportunity to live in a country that has been devastated by TPTB the last 5 years, I can assure you, when something is so carefully designed and/or a long line of random events looks like a "conspiracy theory", it usually is. I've often been in front of Greek government officials the last 5 years that were mumbling about "conspiracy theories" when they had to cover up a dirty work of theirs. It's the "reverse psychology" trick that you deny the obvious because it's too obvious to accept it.
Also there is often this argument that a conspiracy can't hide in plain sight and it can't remain unified. Well it is visible for anyone who researches and unification for cartelization is a fact. So I am dismayed to see someone such as Eric Raymond (progenitor of the term "open source") who claims a 150-160 IQ using such excuses. Yet I also agree to some extent with Eric, that the vested interests are symptom of a systemic effect of the Logic of Collective Action and thus the term "prospiracy" is apropos.
2. Don't get smart people wrong because of their disability to acknowledge something that it's conspicuous to you. As you're a fan of the late Steve Jobs, one of his worse flaws, IMHO, was that he had been harsh to his colleagues. Not everybody functions the way you do. This is prominent between the younger persons. Their ability to understand something difficult varies from person to person, sometimes even the smartest ones are failing to understand the simplest things. After all these years, I tend to believe that the Pareto principle is in a dynamic equilibrium where the "best" 20% often becomes a part of the "worst" 80% and vice versa. People need their time. Period.
Clever, I agree multi-variate coupled oscillation would indeed be one way of abstracting the chaotic model...although I bet MA approached it from a less closed-solution approach, i.e. bottom up assemblage of components (e.g. transverse wave) and allowing them to interact in some A.I. learning system.
3. I'm sure you're aware that we are -literally- talking about the same things here, right? A long story short, if one has the way to predict accurately the outcome of such a model, at any given time, I'll be glad to help him document it and have my name under his Nobel prize...
(Yes, it's THAT big).
