In the world of political economy, where analysts are concerned with probable risk assessment and the incentives inherent to being risk-prone or averse, conforming confirmation is a psychological condition. Coercion, for example, is a conforming confirmation that results from the application of risk. The application is typically considered improper but, like the Objectivist says, conforming to natural conditions (the truth of a natural identity) is the final arbiter (DRU).
Inherent to assessing the risk is how to measurably know what it is. Right away, we have a problem assessing what reality is.
Even though political and economic values are analytically separated, what is the reality?
First of all, we have to decide what is economic or political. We may agree that there are cross effects but disagree, often passionately, about causal attributes. Economists tend to site economic problems as being politically derived while political analysts see economic problems requiring a political solution.
Given the disagreement we tend to rely on predictive utility. An if-then statement reduces reality to an engineering problem, which requires deciding what the objective is. Since proper “means to ends” differs among us, and opposing parties apply risk to get what they want (which is both political and economic), there is a descriptive random utility (an organized complexity) that exists to measure what objective reality is. The political and economic dimensions naturally converge with predictive utility to occupy the same space over time.
Convergence of the two, risk dimensions gives the appearance of a random attribution but, really, it has predictive utility. Economists, for example, say we have a “mixed economy.” This means that no matter the prediction there is always the plausible political argument to explain the apparent, random discrepancy.
Currently, the Fed is going to end QE. Many economists and business leaders say it did nothing but make the assessment of probable risk so complex that we would be better off without it. Since QE (buying toxic debt) kept interest rates low to reduce the cost of public debt needed to slow the rate of deflation, there was really no reduction of debt. The budget deficit was reduced but there is a lot of debt on the Fed’s balance sheet described as assets (surplus value). What’s the probability here? It’s so complex that no matter what we do it seems like the result is descriptively random.
By no accident, our fate is in the lap of the gods…and who are they, exactly? To what, then, shall we give proper attribution with predictive random utility.
Keep in mind that things appear random within a particular space, but in the aggregate dimension, things are not random at all. The bee that buzzed your bonnet last Spring and the leaf that flickers in your face this Fall always was and always will be, miraculously appearing without any particular attribution but determined, nevertheless, to be the object of your experience randomly selected by the choices you have made to predict the future now.
Kant, for example, seemed to say that your mind is likely to know what your eyes probably won’t see, but not really in the way a Buddhist describes it. Not in a spiritual way but in a pantheistic way.
Being materialistically determined does not null and void the probability of a miraculous existence, the Pope says, for example. Instead, experience in your particular space, as things come and go with uncertain attributive value, serves to indicate (understand) how miraculous “the cause” really is “all things considered” without being a miracle at all.
How is it that scientists reduce things to the attributive value of a measurable, quantum existence yet, at the same time, at the quantum level, are apt to say that material existence is randomly creative and spontaneous, existing an addjective reality (that logically reduces to nothing) “being” described as “spooky.”
How is it that God can be chaotic and described with predictive utility at the same time?
(Logically conditioned, using the if-then statement of a probable existence–converging what my mind probably knows with what my eyes are likely to see, it all looks pretty miraculous to me!)
Notice the passive resistance.
The theist and the atheist know the same thing. What really is the measurable difference?
With proper attribution, do not the values naturally aggress to converge and tolerate one objective reality, being random but all predictably now!
The “us and them” duality converges, naturally, to form “the inexistence” (the being that exists in the nothingness, miraculously “on demand”).