Ever heard of counterfactuals? Sounds like a tongue-twister, doesn’t it? Dive with me into the world of shortcuts and assumptions we make when trying to simplify the oh-so-complicated reality around us.

Picture this: A man throws a ball in a park. After watching him a few times, you notice there’s a pattern to how it flies. Soon, you’ve got a formula in your head that predicts its flight. But, and here’s the kicker, this formula doesn’t account for sudden gusts of wind or that one time the guy’s arm was sore. It’s a general blueprint that assumes all conditions remain constant. Perfect, right? Not so fast.

Now, let’s shake things up and bring in some furry, four-legged chaos agents – dogs! If the park’s crowded with them, that ball’s flight path can be interrupted in a myriad of ways. Here’s where things get wild: every park is unique, and every situation unpredictable. What might work in one scenario may be utterly chaotic in another, especially when tiny changes can spiral out into significant impacts.

This, my friends, is the world of counterfactuals: the oversimplified models we create in our minds. Think of them as mental ‘filters’ that sometimes strip out critical details, only to later realize we’ve been seeing things through rose-coloured glasses. Yes, these filters work beautifully in controlled settings, but real life is more like a wild, unpredictable jungle than a calm, sterile lab. In reality, you only have one chance to decide on the actual path, while statistics might suggest otherwise.

Our universe, vast and magnificent, doesn’t bend to our linear thinking. We may cherish precision tools, yet the cosmos whirls in intricate patterns, leaving us marveling at its grandeur.

It’s essential to understand that certain phenomena resist being boiled down to shortcuts. Enter the concept of ‘irreducible complexity’, especially in computational terms (nod to Steve Wolfram). Here, shortcuts falter in prediction. The system’s intricacies need to unravel progressively, as minor tweaks can topple forecasts.

A core issue with counterfactuals lies in the presumption that any measuring tool is unconnected to its subject. This allows us to entertain hypothetical scenarios and apply counterfactual logic with confidence, so long as our instruments are precise. But this independence might be an oversimplification. In a world brimming with correlations, assuming detachment can be tricky. If the instrument aligns with what it measures, then predictions become context-based. Such a superdeterministic stance could revolutionize our forecasting capacity.

So, whether you’re about to make a choice, forecast an outcome, or simply throw a ball in the park, be wary of unseen variables. It’s not solely about the evident; it’s about the overlooked.

Embrace life’s unpredictability; it heightens the adventure!

Trade well and Prosper

The ATS mob