Proxies as magic and math
In science, measurements are exact. The mathematical properties of nature are objective. Meanwhile, in the humanities, measurements can be of good and bad, effective or ineffective, rich versus poor, beauty, or many other things.
A proxy in science or the humanities would represent the entity in which it is linked. If the proxy does not represent its denominator, it is not a viable proxy. A clock is a proxy for time. Since time, like all scientific measurements, is objective the clock is right or not a proxy for time.
If a congressional representative votes by proxy, which is to have someone vote in his or her stead, and that proxy votes in opposition to who he represents, that voter will likely no longer be a proxy. But the congressman controls the proxy. He/she can even keep an insubordinate proxy if they so choose. But for science, in our clock example, the laws of nature control the proxy.
Businesses, like economics, are human creations. Disney world exists, Walt Disney used to exist, but The Walt Disney Company is an intangible legal entity. Since businesses are not natural objects that obey the laws of science, any proxy associated with them is subjective. A subjective proxy does not differ from an opinion. Like the congressional representative, he does not have to dismiss his proxy; it is his personal decision. While a clock that does not tell time, is not a proxy for time.
For science and humanities and everything else, things unknown can not have a proxy. While your watch is a proxy for time on Earth, there is no clock that tells the time of an undiscovered planet. There aren’t any proxy voters for the 119th Congress because it does not exist yet. An arbitrary measurement used as a proxy in a model is a proxy for nothing. There can be no measurements of mysteries. The undiscovered exoplanet and the 120th Congress are unknown and can not have proxies.
Some things never change. For things that do, if the change can not be predicted, there can be no proxy for it. You could be like, “Oh wait!” A random number generator is a proxy for a random generator! It is always random! But that outcome being random is known. If an entity is defined as a random number generator, it is a mathematical property, which is objective. That is why a random number generator can be a proxy for itself. It’s science.
There is also a company’s common stock. A stock price represents company value. Not just how much money it makes, but how much it might make in the future. The future, concerning humans, is unknown. Like who will be in the 120th Congress and where intelligent life is in the universe. Stock prices are a guess on what an unknown might be. Something unknown can not be represented by a proxy. So if stock prices do not represent company value, what do they represent? They exist so they must represent something.
Business is not a natural phenomenon. It is man made. Operating a business, you are doing whatever the business does. But being intangible human creations, they do not function as real things. A headquarters exists, a brand does not. IBM is not a thing that tangibly develops and adapts to survive or succeed. Its changes start in our minds.
If rainfall played a role in IBM’s evolution, a proxy could represent rainfall in its evolution model. The data produced would be objective. This model could be improved upon, but will always remain objective because it is based on the fact of rainfall. Would trading stock affect this rain-sensitive IBM’s evolution? It wouldn’t. IBM would remain itself, a company whose growth depends on water no matter who owns its shares. Supply and demand do not affect rainfall or other scientific properties that depend on water. In this case IBM’s evolution is a scientific non-subjective thing, so the shares would very rarely change because its future is defined.
That’s a wild example that seems crazy the whole time you are reading it. However, if you zoom out from the craziness, and see how it works when that which is nonscientific is treated as part of the natural world, it highlights the truth. No one thing can be subjective and objective at the same time.
I know what you all are thinking, but your opinion of a lion, and the lion itself, are two different things. The former being subjective and the latter objective. IBM and IBM’s evolution are the same thing. Tough to understand, but it is similar to the lion and its age are who the lion objectively is. Your feelings for the that elder lion are separate from that same lion. An entity can not be objective and subjective.
Is the proxy that represents IBM’s market value, its stock price, subjective or objective? If that price is based on a future we do not know, then it either can’t be known or it’s subjective. We know there is a future for mankind, but not the composition of it. Nor do we know what market conditions will be. Common stock is not a proxy for book value. So stock prices are not a proxy for company value, but of something else.
Economics, business, money, and IBM’s stock are all man made. As a function of humanity, they exist but are subjective. We can interpret the size of a company in many ways. Stock value is one of those ways. It can be good or bad, too low, too high, volatile, safe, blue-chip, speculative, big, or small. The company can be all those things simultaneously in the eyes of humanity. Its stock is based on the future. So a stock price is a proxy of a mystery. Logically, the proxy of a mystery, would also be mystery. Common stock as a proxy appears to have more in common with magic than math.
Our decisions are a proxy for who we are. They define us and our personality. If they didn’t, what kind of reality would that be? Where our decisions were something other than our decisions. What kind of reality would it be if proxies, while representing something, were actually something else? Like the unknown. If a proxy reflects the unknown, it could show anything. Common stock is a proxy controlled by people. Decisions of people steer this proxy. Does a proxy reflect that which it represents, or who controls it? No one controls the rain.
