Skip to main content

How to Estimate Anything From Nothing...

or How to be a Good System Engineer

This will be a discussion of how to estimate something from little or almost no information.
We call this making a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess or a SWAG.

I've been pretending to be a system engineer for a long time.  And I have to admit that I still have to go look up the average wait time in a queue or the Poisson distribution. Typically estimates are extensions of known data, the more data the better.  But what happens when you know hardly anything about the data that answers the question, because it doesn't exist?

Something from Nothing...

The modern method of how to estimate something from no information at all is the classic paper: "Implications of the Copernican principle for our future prospects" by J. Richard Gott III [1]. Sounds innocuous, but is probably one of the best tools ever invented for doing system analysis when information is lacking. It's almost as important as Baye's theorem that allows one to adjust their estimates of a probability given new information.  With these two tricks you can make an estimation of almost anything, and correct it as you learn new information. Some might call that science, but it's more like 'practical science' or what most people call engineering.

How long will the Berlin Wall stand?

If you were standing beside the Berlin Wall when vacationing in Berlin, you might ask yourself that question.  But how could you predict something like that?  Go collect data about all the walls in all the cities in the world by type, size, lifetime and then use that data to predict how long the Berlin Wall will live by finding all the walls that are similar to it? That's a lot of work. But it will almost certainly give you a fairly accurate lifetime prediction for the Berlin Wall. We can make a SWAG without all that additional data, it will be more inaccurate, but maybe it's accurate enough for whatever other calculation you are doing.

Gott's Copernican theory goes like this: If I am at a random place and time and I observe something that is N years old, with a 95% confidence level I can say that it's extended lifetime will be between N/39 and 39N.

Or a 2/3rds chance of having a 1/6 to 6 times longer lifetime.  Why?

This is because if you are observing the lifetime of an object at random, you can be there at any time during its lifetime. This means that if you assume that lifetimes are randomly distributed and your appearance is random, half the time you will be in the last half of the object's lifetime and half the time you'll be in the object's first half of its lifetime. Continuing on, there's a 2.5% chance you'll be in the object's first 2.5% of its lifetime or 1/40th of its life. Double that for a 95% confidentiality limit, so 1/39th and then 39 times for the odds in the other direction.  For instance, Gott was a tourist in Germany in 1966.  He saw the Berlin wall.  He read a plaque that told him the wall was built in 1957. He then concluded that he was seeing the wall at a random time during its lifetime.  He wasn't there to see the wall, he just happened upon it. Since at that time the wall was 9 years old, with 95% confidence, he expect it to last another 9/39 years (12 weeks) to 39*9 years (351 years). It came down in 1984 after 27 years. He expected it to be there 1.5 years to 54 years 2/3rds of the time. Whats the most likely time to live? 50 % of the time it is between 3 and 18 years. The most likely time is 9 more years.[2]

How Long will North Korea's communist state survive?

They were founded in 1952.  That was 64 years ago.  With a 95% confidence level the state of North Korea will be around for 64/39 years (1 year, 7 months) to 64*39 years (2500) years. Wow, that's scary. Maybe we should figure out some way to 'nudge' that around.

See how easy it is! There's been many arguments about why exactly this formula actually works.  Its been tried on Broadway show run lengths and found to be accurate and I've read about it on the Internets, so it must be true. Let's use it to calculate something interesting: How long will the human race survive? (From [1]) The human race is a species. It's been around for about 200,000 years. You are alive today at some random time.  The human species, with a 95% probability will be around for another 200,000/39 years (6000 years) or 200,000*39 years (9,321,000 years.)  Hmm. Looks like not enough time to settle the galaxy, but it depends upon how fast you can travel. It doesn't say that we might not create some other species to settle the galaxy... but it seem unlikely that we could by ourselves. Seems like it's going to take killer robots to settle the galaxy or nothing.

Thanks for reading,
 -Dr. Mike

[1] Nature, Vol. 363, 27 May 1993
[2] reference

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Declaration of Independence is the foundation of modern ethics

The Settlement of the War between Science and Religion.
Why the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are More Important than you realize.
These two documents provide the foundation of the Grand Moral Compromise between Religion and Science that allowed the Industrial Revolution to progress by defining the morals and ethics of governments and their relationship with the people. The only moral and ethical form of government is declared to be a Lawful Democracy with Religious Freedom. These two documents define why this is from first postulates and dictate the method to form a government.

The Grand Moral Compromise was defined in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Bill of Rights: it is the agreement that abolished the crime of heresy in return for freedom of all religions, including science, the harbinger of truth.
Only about half [G] of the world has agreed to this Grand Moral Compromise, the rest are still at war with themselves: religion against religion, a…

A modest proposal to end the Flat Earth Society and put Silicon Valley on the map.

Flat Wrong the end piece in Scientific American, in the latest issue (May 2020) got me to thinking about how we could just end this idiocy that leads to many, many people being driven into believing obviously fallacious conspiracy theories.

Did we actually go to the moon? (hint: we did.) Was Obama born in Hawaii? (hint: yes.) Is he Muslim? (hint: no.) Is QAnon saying anything that's true? (hint: no.) Are the Jews trying to take over the world (hint: no.)Are aliens here? (hint: no.)Do humans cause Global Warming? (hint: yes.)Have the Clintons murdered tens of people? (hint: no.)Did the Russians help the Trump campaign? (hint: yes.)Yada, yada, yada. We can't actually have much proof against most of these fallacies, but the Flat Earth one, we can if we actually get high enough in the atmosphere to see the curvature of the Earth. You will convince some Flat Earthers they are wrong. Most will just come up with some other excuse and continue to try and justify the fun fact that they …

Republicans vs. Democrats. It's not conservatives vs. liberals, it's authoritarians vs. progressives.

It's Authoritarians (Royalty lovers - L'estate, c'est moi) vs. Progressives (All men are created equal)

Republicans are more Authoritarian than Conservative. Conservatives want to pick an imaginary time in the past and declare it to be perfect. Authoritarians have a Father figure complex. Whatever the Father says is right. Anything else is immoral. [1]  So even though there is a streak of Conservatism in the Republican party, it's not really the basis of their morality. Their morality is handed to them by their Father, whatever he says is moral. To disagree with him is immoral. Pretty simple, easy for people who are too tired to think for themselves.

In contrast, the moral authority of Democrats comes from their Progressive, American ideals.

Progressives believe in the

Declaration of Independence:Life Liberty and the Pursuit of HappinessAll men are created equalThe people agree on how they will be governedNo Royal authority is acceptedNo one is above the lawThe Gettysbu…