The Numerati

As I understand it the Numerati [as discussed here thenumerati.net/ ] are “entrepreneurial mathematicians” who use alogarithms to do data mining. There are a wide range of applications across the sciences including social sciences.
These researchers use the massive amounts of private data individuals provide when they use a credit card, donate to a cause, surf the Internet or make a phone call. Bits of personal information—buying habits or preferences—are culled to radically transform, and customize, everyday experiences.

Stephen Baker suggests that eventually sensors implanted in our bodies will report early warnings of medical problems, predict an increased risk of disease in the future or adjust a drug for a single individual. An alogarithm developed in market research might be useful for predicting HIV mutation patterns.

As a interested layperson, I’m curious to know if anyone here is doing this kind of research.

Not to be too pedantic, but I think you mean “algorithm”. An algorithm is a sequence of instructions, whereas a logarithm describes the inverse of an exponential equation.

That bit of semantics aside, the ability of mathematics to prove itself useful in a variety of situations is indeed awesome.

yet the australian philosopher colin leslie dean has shown mathematics ends in meaninglessness ie self contradiction
gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ience4.pdf

and that mathematics is not the language of the universe-as a thread on here has shown

Colin Leslie Dean isn’t even a real person. You just made her up.

The Numerati is a secretly-funded, highly-confidential, and globally-run government program that shamelessly self-promotes the work of Colin Leslie Dean in order to prepare for the second coming of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and the landing of martian spacecraft from several different alien civilizations to prepare mankind for its transcendental rebirth into energy-based creatures.

There was something called the web bot project, or something like that. but it measured changes in the frequiences of different words and from that data made predictions… apparantly it predicted 9-11…

Xunzian --thanks for the correction.

ladyjane–you said:

The universe apparently has a broken symmetry to it which is difficult to capture mathematically. Nevertheless, algorithms have come close to capturing natural patterns. Future developments in mathematics may come closer still. Why not?

you say why not
simply as colin leslie has shown
mathematics is not the language of the universe
so maths cannot explain it at all
all maths dose is turn the universe into one big paradox -thus making the universe and maths meaninglessness

math only creates a paradox if you atke it seriously… it’s better to casually dabble in math so you can gain it’s uses without having to be consistent.

English is not the language of the universe but English can explain the universe to some extent. Why can’t mathematical language do the same? More than that, mathematics is transcultural to a greater degree than is philosophy. Wherever modern technology is employed, the mathematical truths that underlie it are affirmed. Further, mathematics is more systematic and precise than English. So, accepting the mathematics is a human invention and not the language of the universe, why isn’t able to explain the universe better than English in some ways?

How does mathematics turn the universe into a paradox?

because
1+1=2
in formalist maths is just a string of meaningless symbols
but you use english when you say
1= a number
2= a number

but maths cant tell us what a number is with out circularity
go look at my thread dealing with maths is not the language of the uiverrse-i am not going to repete that all again

go look at all the paradoxes in maths

I think I heard of colin leslie dean it was the name of a bob dylon album or maybe he was a serial killer but he was something I know.

The symbols aren’t meaningless. They have assigned meanings just like all languages.

No language can tell us what the meanings of the words in it are without circularity. Words define words. However, words and numbers are not closed systems. They are signs that can point to phenomena outside the language systems in which they are embedded.

There are paradoxes in all languages. Yet we find them useful everyday. The use of mathematics has been proven in science and technology. Thus, it passes the pragmatic test of truth. Even if it is not ultimately true, i.e. not the language of universe, math is a powerful tool for the extension of controlling knowledge.

as colin leslie dean says
seeing that maths ends in meaninglessness there is a mystery as to how/why it works
in the west logic is the arbitar of truth
if something is contradictory it cant be true
maths is contradictory so it cant be true -even if it works pragmatically

the Ptolemaic system worked for them but it was not true

mathacademy.com/pr/prime/art … /index.asp

and when you give them meaning you end in the carroll paradox

What do you ordinarily consider meaning and how is it lost? Languages including mathematics are flawed human inventions. That doesn’t make them meaningless or useless. Mathematic has proved very useful for developing metrics for use in the natural sciences. The metrics are useful enough to get humans to the moon and back, design computer chips, and measure a wide variety of social science statistics with small margins of error. Think of mathematics as an art if you like. The portrait it paints of the universe is so life-like it could be mistaken for a photo.

maths is not the language of the universe
maths ends in meaninglessness ie all of its paradoxes
so the universe built from maths is meaninglessness ie self contradictory
you seemed to be bewitched by the pragmatic usefullness of maths and cant see that maths ends meaninglessness thus making its pragmatic usefullness a mystery
get your mind around that
logically maths cant be true - as colin leslie dean has shown- yet it works WHY/HOW does it achieve this there is a mystery here

Hardly bewitched. I’m no mathematician. But from physics we learn that nature itself apparently has a broken symmetry. Since human beings are products of nature, it’s hardly surprising that we can produce concepts that correspond with nature, albeit imperfectly and broken in their own way. Mathematics is true to nature in the sense that it can be made to correspond to it. It is at least true in a way analogous to the way a tromp l’oeil painting can be true to life or the way an archer’s aim can be true enough to hit a target’s bulls-eye. For example, the fractal equation closely approximates numerous natural processes.

You haven’t demonstrated that math is meaningless. It’s an open system. Like game theory, Carroll’s paradox shows that we are the one’s who supply math with its meanings. Math tell us something about the physical world, but it is the physical world as sensed and understood by human beings. Like all languages, math is a social construct. Social constructs have meaning for the participants in the “society” where they have currency.

New York Times book review:

November 2, 2008
They’ve Got Your Number
By ROB WALKER
Skip to next paragraph
THE NUMERATI

By Stephen Baker

244 pp. Houghton Mifflin Company. $26
Maybe you’re the kind of person who doesn’t believe that the kind of person you are can be deduced by an algorithm and expressed through shorthand categorizations like “urban youth” or “hearth keeper.” Maybe I’d agree with you, and maybe we’re right. But the kind of people — “crack mathematicians, computer scientists and engineers” — whom Stephen Baker writes about in “The Numerati” clearly see things differently. In fact, they probably regard such skepticism as more fodder for the math-driven identity formulas they’ve created to satisfy the consumer-product companies and politicians who hire them.

Baker, a writer for BusinessWeek, categorizes the categorizers into seven chapters: some number crunchers seek to decode us as shoppers, others as voters or patients or even potential terrorists. In all cases, the idea is to gather data, use computers to compile and interpret it, and draw conclusions about how we will behave — or how we might be persuaded to behave. “We turn you into math,” one of his subjects declares. Sometimes the data comes from firms that collect it from public records or subscription lists, or that conduct exhaustive attitudinal surveys, concluding on the basis of whether you own cats or subscribe to gourmet magazines which political “tribe” you belong to, and thus how a campaign should approach you (or not). But the most interesting information comes from us, particularly by way of our online activities. Baker’s savants monitor our collective (if anonymous) Web surfing patterns for “behavioral clues” that, for example, help advertisers decide when to hit us with what pitch.

You probably already have a sense that this sort of thing is going on, but Baker uncovers some surprising details. A chapter on efforts to convert the information disclosed by bloggers and users of social networks is among the most interesting. Baker offers an anecdote about a firm called Umbria helping a cellphone company that’s decided to charge more for Bluetooth data connections, a move that “sent bloggers into a fury.” Umbria, which studies bloggers and divides them into tribes, concluded that all the spleen-venting was coming from the “power users,” whereas “the fashionistas, the music lovers, the cheapskates” did not care. “With this intelligence,” Baker writes, the company could placate the power users by offering them “free” service (while raising the prices on headsets) and “continue charging everyone else.” He goes on to describe Umbria’s efforts to teach its computers to interpret blogs and draw conclusions from different phrases, font choices, background colors and even emoticons.

On one level, this is just the low comedy of the profit motive: our finest techno-­wizards and their beautiful machines wrestling with the meaning of “:)” so that some cellphone company can micro-target its fee increases. But Baker also, in effect, offers a counternarrative to the usual story about the digital revolution. While millions of ordinary citizens have been em­powered to express their individuality with a panoply of new tools, a smaller number of people have been working out the most efficient ways to convert those individuals into numbers on a spreadsheet.

We used to go about our business and let marketers try to catch up with us. “Today,” he writes, “we spy on ourselves and send electronic updates minute by minute.”

The most cautionary chapter concerns information-age tools that hunt for terrorists and other bad guys, which risk being “repurposed” in dangerous ways. The most optimistic one deals with data mining and health care, predicting a time when “networked gadgets” will monitor our weight, our physical activity and even our bathroom time to help us live “healthier, happier and longer lives.” Both chapters — all the chapters, really — involve a lot of speculation (many sentences begin “Let’s say . . .” or “Imagine . . .”). By and large, Baker seems to accept much of what the new “counting elite” say they can do now or will be able to do someday, but sometimes their claims and Baker’s credulity are all the reader has to go on. At one point, a data cruncher who is devising ways to improve office-worker efficiency says the underlying stochastic calculus isn’t too hard to understand, starts to explain a formula . . . and then he stops, and Baker lets it drop. Presumably he was simply more interested in keeping up his short book’s crisp pace, but “The Nu­merati” could have used a few more specific and nonhypothetical examples, like that Bluetooth anecdote. Baker makes only passing mention of the application of extensive mathematical modeling that the typical reader is most likely to be familiar with: the Wall Street version, which has proved, shall we say, fallible.

Still, Baker may be right in saying the mathematicians and computer scientists he writes about are or soon will be “in a position to rule the information of our lives.” Maybe you don’t believe in the version of you that some guy is coaxing out of a computer in the nondescript offices of a company you’ve never heard of. But that’s not what matters. What matters is whether that guy, and his clients, believe in it. :frowning:

Rob Walker writes the Consumed column for The New York Times Magazine. His latest book is “Buying In: The Secret Dialogue Between What We Buy and Who We Are.”