[[09-04|25-09-04]] assume prior is exogenous (= from the past), propose the prior # 🔑key 1. there's no commitment free information as we follow "differences that makes differences" 2. optimality and choice 3. ---- ## Refuting Irreversibility: A Systematic Deconstruction ### Against Eric Van den Steen's Irreversibility Framework **Eric's Claim**: "In the absence of irreversibility, choices could be reversed costlessly and there would be no need to look deep into the future." **Our Refutation**: This assumes unidirectional temporal flow. Our model demonstrates that entrepreneurs create **reversibility through distributional promises**. By maintaining σ² > 0.02, ventures preserve pivot capability despite apparent commitments. Tesla's "roughly 200 miles" wasn't looking deep into the future—it was designing a future with multiple realizable paths. **Eric's Claim**: "Four sources of irreversibility: lock-in, lock-out, lags and inertia." **Our Refutation**: - **Lock-in** → Dissolved by variance preservation. Low initial τ prevents lock-in. - **Lock-out** → Prevented by exaptation space. Today's "irrelevant" capability becomes tomorrow's core business (Tesla batteries → Powerwall). - **Lags** → Overcome by time reversal. P(present|future) means the future pulls the present, not past pushing forward. - **Inertia** → Transformed into stability toward desired future (Bayesian Cringe reversal). **Eric's Claim**: "A firm's current opportunity set depends on its entire history of choices." **Our Refutation**: This commits the **sequential fallacy**. Our model shows: ``` Opportunity_Set = f(Promise_Distribution, Preserved_Variance) NOT Opportunity_Set = f(Historical_Path) ``` BetterPlace had extensive history but zero opportunity set because τ=80 eliminated variance. Tesla with minimal history had vast opportunities through preserved σ². ### Against Scott Stern's "Test Two, Choose One" **Scott's Claim**: "Continuing search until multiple equally viable strategies are identified." **Our Refutation**: This misunderstands the entrepreneurial task. Entrepreneurs don't search for pre-existing strategies—they **create strategy space through promise architecture**. The "equally viable" alternatives aren't discovered; they're designed through distributional promises. **Scott's Claim**: "Optimization using commitment-free information." **Our Refutation**: There is no such thing as "commitment-free information" in entrepreneurship. Every promise, even vague ones, creates commitment. The key is designing commitments that preserve optionality: ``` Commitment ≠ Irreversibility Commitment with σ² > 0.02 = Reversible Structure ``` **Scott's Claim**: "Optimization and choice are distinct and complementary, occurring sequentially." **Our Refutation**: This artificially separates what our model unifies. In the promise framework: ``` Promise(t) = Optimization + Choice + Future_Pull ``` They occur simultaneously through the distributional promise Beta(μτ, (1-μ)τ), not sequentially. ### Theoretical Synthesis: Irreversibility as Misframed Problem Both Eric and Scott make the fundamental error of accepting irreversibility as given. Our model reveals irreversibility as a **design choice**, not a constraint: |Traditional View|Our Model| |---|---| |History determines future|Future pulls present| |Path dependency|Variance dependency| |Lock-in is inevitable|Lock-in is τ management failure| |Search then choose|Design possibility space| |Irreversibility constrains|Irreversibility is created by precision| ### Mathematical Proof of Reversibility Given our framework: ``` Reversibility = P(pivot|current_state) = g(σ²) = g(μ(1-μ)/(τ+1)) ``` As long as τ < μ(1-μ)/ε - 1, reversibility is maintained. Irreversibility only emerges when entrepreneurs choose excessive precision. ### The Entropy Offset Mechanism Eric and Scott ignore the entrepreneur's ability to inject negative entropy through vague promises: ``` ΔS_system = ΔS_natural + ΔS_promise ``` Where: - ΔS_natural > 0 (entropy increase from operations) - ΔS_promise < 0 (negative entropy from maintained ambiguity) - Net result can be ΔS_system ≤ 0 (reversibility preserved) ### Empirical Implications Our refutation predicts: 1. Ventures with higher initial τ have lower pivot success rates (contra Scott's optimization) 2. Path-independent success through variance management (contra Eric's path dependency) 3. "Irreversible" commitments become reversible through reframing as distributions The fundamental error in both frameworks is treating entrepreneurship as navigation through a fixed landscape rather than construction of the landscape itself. Irreversibility isn't a law of nature—it's a consequence of poor promise design.