Soros and Rand

Soros is like Rand in that he recognizes the differences between the metaphysically given and the volitional.

Unfortunately I am afraid he or his followers might take his ideas about reflexivity (which only works for volitional phenomena) into the metaphysically given. In which case he will fail because existence holds primacy over consciousness.

I believe his ideas about regulating volition might exceed in future and will end up trying to regulate the metaphysically given.

I believe his certainty that no certainty is possible will end up in failure too. Too many of his followers seem to think certainty and omniscience are the same. I would like to point out that certainty is possible for simple metaphysically given phenomena. Like about the fact that existence exists. We are pretty damn sure about that.

I also agree there are complex metaphysically given phenomena like weather and biology in which although causality and identity are not violated and truth if known can be verified in polynomial time, it would be impossible to derive the truth in polynomial time. It is right in the face of such immense ignorance that we use statistics and machine learning to manage our ignorance.

However volition is a whole different ball game which neither reflexivity nor Hari Seldon’s psychohistory can handle. Soros’ reflexivity underestimates human volition. He believes by discounting for reflexivity we can regulate volition. While this may seem to work in the short term, it is merely like having a solution to the halting problem. All it would take is just another action by a volitional agency to disprove the effectiveness of any regulation of volition. In that sense Soros and his teacher Popper are right about social sciences being something we have not yet proved wrong and must be constantly revised to beat the individual.

Neo was right: The problem is choice.

No matter how complex a regulatory matrix is, there will always be a Neo to surprise all the expectations of the regulator: the Architect.

Rand was right: Men ought to be free and ought to suffer the consequences of their attempts to cheat reality just as they reap the benefits when adhering to it.

Any attempts immunize people from the primacy of existence will inevitably fail.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s