Why the simplest explanation is always the best

Preamble

The simplest explanation is always the best among the explanations that are representative.  It is called the principle of parsimony,  Occam's razor. It is the bedrock of scientific enlightenment. There is a recent development that people start to do a category error to discard this principle based on the following setting that lead to misunderstanding: if we say that the simplest model that can explain the data in one representation but another representation requires a more complex model, then we are choosing more complex model. This is obviously wrong. The simplest explanation is to be chosen from the models that captures the complexity on the given representations, not the simplest over both representations. Filter explanations first based on representations then selection follows. Here we shown the core idea via an illustrative example. 

Figure: Circle has a zero Pearson
correlation. (Wikipedia)

Revisiting Occam’s Razor: A case of correlation and geometry

In order to understand this category error, we will work on a concrete example. Let's say we have a data, which is a circular shape $\mathscr{D}(x, y)$, as in figure. We have 3 models: 

$$\mathscr{M}_{1} : y = a x + b $$

$$\mathscr{M}_{2} : y = \sqrt{1-x^{2}} $$

$$\mathscr{M}_{3} : y ~ NN(x)  $$

And $\mathscr{U}$ a utility function, Pearson correlation $C(x, y)$.  We consider performance measure in ranking for the utility and a measure of representation. $\mathscr{M}_{3}$ is a neural network with a lot of parameters.

There is no error in choosing $\mathscr{M}_{1}$ based on the similar correlations these models produce. Principle of parsimony is not violated at all.  This is correct if we are only considering numerical representation. Pearson correlation as a utility works well for purely numerical representation. What about geometric representation? Then we need to change our utility function (representation measure or performance function). 

Let's say if we use curvature as a utility, $\kappa(x,y)$, in this case $\mathscr{M}_{1}$ fails to capture curvature and its is filtered out before Occam's razor can be applied. Then we left with  $\mathscr{M}_{2}$ and $\mathscr{M}_{3}$ . 

Correlation and geometric explanations are two different things. Two vastly different geometries can produce the same correlations.  A model can be quite good in explaining correlation but fails to capture geometric complexity. In this setting, it does not mean that Occam's razor is wrong. We need to apply Occam's razor across representations: numeric, geometric, algebraic, or symbolic, depending on the purpose. Always keep in mind the purpose or utility of model when invoking Occam's razor. Simplest explanation over the required representations that are relevant are the best. 

On the utility, performance and representations measure

Performance function, representation measure and utility functions can be different in real life, here for illustration purposes we consider them interchangeably. 

Conclusion

Nature minimises cost over complexity but under utility constraints. Minimal cost without satisfying utility or representation measure won't be chosen despite being the simplest. We need to filter first based on utility or representation measure before applying Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is always the best among the explanations that are representative. 

 Cite as 

 @misc{suzen25occam, 

     title = { Why the simplest explanation is always the best}, 

     howpublished = {\url{https://science-memo.blogspot.com/2025/11/simplest-explanation-always-best.html}}, 

     author = {Mehmet Süzen},

     year = {2025}

}  

The conditional query fallacy: Applying Bayesian inference from discrete mathematics perspective

Preamble

    The Tilled Field,
Joan Miró
(Wikipedia)

One of the core concepts in data sciences is conditional probabilities, $p(x|y)$ appear as logical description of many of the tasks, such as formulating regression or as a core concept in Bayesian Inference. However, there is operationally no special meaning of a conditional or joint probabilities as their arguments are no more than a compositional event statements. This raise a question: Is there any fundamental relationship between Bayesian Inference and discrete mathematics that is practically relevant to us as practitioners? Since, both topics are based on discrete statements returning a Boolean variables. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is a rabbit hole and probably even an open research.  There is no clearly established connections between discrete mathematics fundamentals and Bayesian Inference.  

Statement mappings as definition of probability 

Statement is a logical description of some events, or set of events. Let's have a semi-formal description of such statements.

Definition: A mathematical or logical statement formed with boolean relationships $\mathscr{R}$ (conjunctions) among set of events $\mathscr{E}$,  so a statement $\mathbb{S}$ is formed with at least a tuple of $\langle \mathscr{R},  \mathscr{E} \rangle$. 

Relationships can be any binary operator and events could explain anything perceptional, i.e., a discretised existence. This is the core discrete mathematics and almost all problems in this domain formed in this setting from defining functions to graph theory. A probability is no exception and definition naturally follows, as so called statement mapping.

Definition: A probability $\mathbb{P}$ is a statement mapping, $\mathbb{P}: \mathbb{S} \rightarrow [0,1]$. 

The interpretation of this definitions that a logical statement is always True if probability is 1 and always False if it is 0. However, having conditionals based on this is not that clear cut.

Conditional Query Fallacy 

A non-commutative statement may imply, reversing the order of statements should not yield to the same filtered set on the data for Bayesian Inference. However, Bayes' theorem would have a fallacy for statement mappings for conditionals in this sense. 

Definition: The conditional query fallacy is defined as one can not update belief in probability, because reversing order of statements in conditional probabilities halts Bayes' update,  i.e., back to back query results into the same dataset for inference.

At first glance, this appears as a Bayes' rule does not support commutative property, practically posterior being equal to likelihood.  However, this fallacy appears to be a notational misdirection. Inference on the filtered dataset back to back constituting a conditional fallacy i.e., when a query language is used to filter data to get A|B and B|A yielding to the same dataset regardless of filtering order. 

Although, in inference with data, likelihood is actually not a conditional probability, strictly speaking and not a filtering operation. It is merely a measure of update rule. We compute likelihood by multiplying values obtained by i.i.d. samples inserted into conjugate prior, a distribution is involved. Hence, the likelihood computationally is not really a reversal of conditional as in $P(A|B)$ written as reversed, $P(B|A)$.  

Outlook

In computing conditional probabilities for Bayesian Inference, our primary assumption is that conditional probabilities; likelihood and posterior are not identical. Discrete mathematics only allows Bayesian updates, if time evolution is explicitly stated with non-commutative statements for conditionals.

Going back to our initial question, indeed there is a deep connection between the fundamentals of discrete mathematics and Bayesian belief update on events as logical statements. The fallacy sounds a trivial error in judgement but (un)fortunately goes into philosophical definitions of probability that simultaneous tracking of time and sample space is not encoded in any of the notations explicitly, making statement filtering definition of probability a bit shaky.

Glossary of concepts

Statement Mapping A given set of mathematical statements mapped into a domain of numbers.

Probability A statement mapping, where domain is $\mathscr{D} = [0,1]$.

Conditional query fallacy Differently put than the above definition. Thinking that two conditional probabilities as reversed statements of each other in Bayesian inference, yields to the same dataset regardless of time-ordering of the queries.

Notes and further reading

• Fallacy is one computes $P(A|B)=P(B|A)$, while filtering results into identical datasets. Correction would be that, one needs to use different sample sizes for reverse statement or compute joints and marginals separately on their own filtered datasets. Use the first filtering sample size in computing the probability not the total.
• Here, discrete mathematics we refer to appears within arguments of probability. The discussion of discrete parameter estimations are a different topic. Gelman discusses this, here.
• Conjunction Fallacy
• Probability Interpretations
• Bayesian rabbit holes: Decoding conditional probability with non-commutative algebra M. Süzen (2022)
• Holes in Bayesian Statistics Gelman-Yao (2021) : This is a beautifully written article. Specially, proposal that context dependence should be used instead of subjective
• John Allen Paulos’s  Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences, 

• Random House (1988).  Interestingly Paullos mentions fallacies regarding the conditional probabilities. 

  An oldy book on numerical fallacies but goodie.    

Bayesian rabbit holes: Decoding conditional probability with non-commutative algebra

Preamble

    The White Rabbit
(Wikipedia)

A novice analyst or even experienced (data) scientist would have thought that the bar notation $|$ in representing conditional probability carries some different operational mathematics. Primarily when written in explicit distribution functions $p(x|y)$. Similar approach applies to joint probabilities such as $p(x, y)$ too. One could see a mixture of these, such as $p(x, y | z)$. In this short exposition, we clarify that none of these identifications within arguments of probability do have any different resulting operational meaning. 

Arguments in probabilities: Boolean statement and filtering 

Arguments in any probability are mathematical statements of discrete mathematics that correspond to events in the experimental setting. These are statements declaring some facts with a boolean outcome. These statements are queries to a data set. Such as, if the temperature is above $30$ degrees, $T > 30$. Temperature $T$ is a random variable. Unfortunately, the term random variable is often used differently in many textbooks. It is defined as a mapping rather than as a single variable. The bar $|$ in conditional probability $p(x|y)$, implies statement $x$ given that statement $y$ has already occurred, i.e., if. This interpretation implies that $y$ first occurred before $x$, but it doesn't imply that they are causally linked. The condition plays a role in filtering, a where clause in query languages. $p(x|y)$ boils down to $p_{y}(x)$, where the first statement $y$ is applied to the dataset before computing the probability on the remaining statement $x$.

In the case of joint probabilities $p(x, y)$, events co-occur, i.e., AND statement. In summary, anything in the argument of $p$ is written as a mathematical statement. In the case of assigning a distribution or a functional form to $p$, there is no particular role for conditionals or joints; the modelling approach sets an appropriate structure.

Conditioning does not imply casual direction: do-Calculus do

A filtering interpretation of conditional $p(x|y)$ does not imply causal direction, but $do$ operator does, $p(x|do(y))$. 

Non-commutative algebra: When frequentist are equivalent to Bayesian

Most of the simple filtering operations would result in identical results if reversed. $p(x|y) = p(y|x)$, prior being equal to posterior. This remark implies we can't apply Bayesian learning with commutative statements. We need non-commutative statements; as a result, one can do Bayesian learning with the newly arriving data, i.e., the arrival of new subjective evidence. The reason seems to be due to the frequentist nature of filtering.

Outlook 

Even though we provided some revelations on decoding the operational meaning of conditional probabilities, we suggested that any conditional, joint or any combination of these within the argument of probabilities has no operational purpose other than pre-processing steps. However, the philosophical and practical implications of probabilistic reasoning are always counterintuitive. Probabilistic reasoning is a complex problem computationally. From a causal inference perspective, we are better equipped to tackle these issues with do-Bayesian analysis.  

Further reading

• Discrete Mathematics, Oscar Levin
• Causal Inference in Statistics, A Primer, Judea Pearl, Madelyn Glymour, Nicholas P. Jewell
• Indicative Conditionals Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 
• Bayesian Epistemology Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 

Please Cite as:

 @misc{suezen22brh, 

     title = {Bayesian rabbit holes: Decoding conditional probability with non-commutative algebra}, 

     howpublished = {\url{https://science-memo.blogspot.com/2022/07/bayesian-conditional-noncommutative.html}}, 

     author = {Mehmet Süzen},

     year = {2022}

}  

Physics origins of the most important statistical ideas of recent times

Figure: Maxwell's handwritings, 
state diagram (Wikipedia)

Preamble

The modern statistics now move into an emerging field called data science that amalgamate many different fields from high performance computing to control engineering. However, the emergent behaviour from researchers in machine learning and statistics that, sometimes they omit naïvely and probably unknowingly the fact that some of the most important ideas in data sciences are actually originated from Physics discoveries and specifically developed by physicist. In this short exposition we try to review these physics origins on the areas defined by Gelman and Vehtari (doi). Additional section is also added in other possible areas that are currently the focus of active research in data sciences. 

Bootstrapping and simulation based inference : Gibbs's Ensemble theory and Metropolis's simulations

Bootstrapping is a novel idea of estimations with uncertainty with given set of samples. It is mostly popularised by Efron and his contribution is immense, making this tool available to all researchers doing quantitative analysis.  However, the origins of bootstrapping can be traced back to the idea of ensembles in statistical physics, which is introduced by J. Gibbs. The ensembles in physics allow us to do just what bootstrapping helps, estimating a quantity of interest with sub-sampling, in the case of statistical physics this appears as sampling a set of different microstates. Using this idea Metropolis devised a inference in 1953, to compute ensemble averages for liquids using computers.  Note that, usage of Monte Carlo approach for pure mathematical nature, i.e., solving integrals, appear much earlier with von Neumann's efforts.

Causality : Hamiltonian systems to Thermodynamic potentials

Figure: Maxwell 
Relations as causal
diagrams.

Even though the historical roots of causal analysis in early 20th century attributed to Wright 1923 for his definition of path analysis, causality was the core tanents of Newtonian mechanics in distinguishing left and right of the equations of motions in the form of differential equations, and the set of differential equations following that with Hamiltonian Mechanics is actually forms a graph, i.e., relationships between generalised coordinates, momentum and positions. This connection is never acknowledge in early statistical literature, and probably causal constructions from classical physics were not well known in that community or did not find its way to data-driven mechanics. Similarly, causal construction of thermodynamic potentials appear as a directed graph as in, Born wheel. It appears as a mnemonic but it is actually  causally constructed via Legendre Transformations.  Of course, causality, philosophically speaking, is discussed since Ancient Greece but here we restrict the discussion on solely quantitative theories after Newton.

Overparametrised models and regularisation : Poincaré classifications and astrophysical dynamics

The current deep learning systems classified as massively overparametrized systems. However, the lower dimensional understanding of this phenomenon were well studied by Poincare's classification of classical dynamics, namely the measurement problem of having overdetermined system of differential equations, i.e., whereby inverse problems are well known in astrophysics and theoretical mechanics.     

High-performance computing: Big-data to GPUs

Similarly, using supercomputers or as now we call it high-performance computation with big data generating processes were actually can be traced back to Manhattan project and ENIAC that aims solving scattering equations and almost 50 years of development on this direction before 2000s. 

Conclusion

The impressive development of new emergent field of data science as a larger perspective of statistics into computer science have strong origins from core Physics literature and research. These connections are not sufficiently cited or acknowledged. Our aim in this short exposition is to bring these aspects into the attention of data science practitioners and researchers alike.

Further reading

Some of the mentioned works and related reading list, papers or books.

• What are the Most Important Statistical Ideas of the Past 50 Years? Gelman & Vehtari (2021)
• Leisurely Look at the Bootstrap, the Jackknife, and Cross-Validation, Bradley Efron and Gail Gong (1983)
• Elementary Principles in Statistical Mechanics, Gibbs (1902)
• Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines, Metropolis et. al. (1953)
• Generalized statistical mechanics: connection with thermodynamics, Curado-Tsallis (1992)
• Poincaré sections of Hamiltonian systems (1996)

• Statistical mechanics of ensemble learning, Anders Krogh and Peter Sollich (1997)

Please cite as follows:

 @misc{suezen22pom, 

     title = { Physics origins of the most important statistical ideas of recent times }, 

     howpublished = {\url{http://science-memo.blogspot.com/2022/02/physics-origins-of-most-important.html}, 

     author = {Mehmet Süzen},

     year = {2022}

  }

Appendix: Pearson correlation and Lattices

Auguste Bravais is famous for his contribution in foundational work on the mathematical theory for crystallography, now seems to be going far beyond periodic solids. Unknown to many, he actually first driven the expression for what we know today as correlation coefficient or  Pearson’s correlation or less commonly Pearson-Galton coefficient. Interestingly, one of the grandfathers of causal analysis Wright is mentioned this in his seminal work of 1921 titled “Correlation and causation” acknowledged Bravais for his 1849 work as the first derivation of correlation.

Appendix: Partition function and set theoretic probability

Long before Kolmogorov set forward his formal foundations of probabilities, Boltzmann, Maxwell and Gibbs build theories of statistical mechanics using probabilistic language and even define settings for set theoretic foundations by introducing ensembles for thermodynamics. For example, partition function (Z) appeared as defining a normalisation factor that summation of densities should yield to 1. Apparently Kolmogorov and contemporaries inspired a lot from physics and mechanics literature.

Appendix: Generative AI

Of course now generative AI took over the hype. Indeed physics of diffusion from Fokker-Planck equation to basic Langevin dynamics is leveraged.  

 

Appendix: Physics is fundamental for the advancement of AI research and practice 

AI as a phenomena appears to be in the domain of core physics. For this reason, studying physics as a (post)-degree or as a self-study modules will give students and practitioners alike a definitive cutting-edge insights.  

• Statistical models based on correlations originates from physics of periodic solids and astrophysical n-body dynamics.
• Neural networks originates from the modelling magnetic materials in discrete states and later named as cooperative phenomenon. Their training dynamics closely follows free-energy minimisation.
• Causality roots in ensemble theory of physical entropy.
• Almost all sampling based techniques are based on the idea of sampling  physics of energy surfaces, i.e. Potential Energy Surfaces. (PES).
• Generative AI  originates from physics of diffusion of fluids: classical  Liouville description of the classical mechanics, i.e, phase-space flows and generalised Fokker-Planck dynamics. 
• Language models based on attention are actually coarse-grained entropy-dynamics
  introduced by Gibbs: ‘Attention Layers’ behaves as coarse-graining procedure, i.e, compressed
  causal graphs mapping.

This is not about building analogies to physics but as foundational topics to AI.

Shifting Modern Data Science Forward: Dijkstra principle for data science

Kindly reposted to KDnuggets by Gregory Piatetsky-Shapiro with the title Data science is not about data -applying Dijkstra principle to data science and enhancements.

Prelude

Dijkstra in Zurich, 1984 (Wikipedia)

Edsger Dijkstra was a Dutch theoretical physicist turned computer scientist, and probably one of the most influential earlier pioneers in the field. He had deep insight in what is computer science and well founded notion of how should it be taught in academics. In this post we extrapolate his ideas into data science. We developed something called, Dijkstra principle for data science, that is driven by his ideas on what does computer science entails.

Computer Science and Astronomy 

Astronomy is not about telescopes. Indeed, it is about how universe works and how its constituent parts are interacting. Telescopes, either being optical or radio observations or similar detection techniques are merely tools to practice and do investigation for astronomy. A formed analogy goes into computer science as well, this is the quote from Dijkstra:

Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.  - Edsger Dijkstra

The idea of Computer Science being not about computer is rather strange in the first instance. However, what Dijkstra had in mind is abstract mechanism and mathematical constructs that one can map real problems and solve it as a computer science problem, such as graph algorithms. Though Computer Science had a lot of subfields but its inception can be considered as rooted in applied mathematics.

Dijkstra principle for data science

By using Dijkstra's approach now we are in position to formulate a principle for data science. 

Data science is no more about data than computer science is about computers. -Dijkstra principle for data science

This sounds absurd. If data science is not about data, then what is it about? Apart from definition of data science as an emergent field, as an amalgamation of multiple fields from statistics to high performance computing,  the idea that data not being the core tenant of data science implies the practice does not aim at data itself rather a higher purpose. Data is used similar to a telescope in astronomy, the purpose is to reveal the empirical truths about representations data conveys. There is no unique ways to achieve this purpose. 

Conclusive Remarks

Dijkstra principle for data science would be very helpful in understanding the data science practice as not data-centric, contrary to mainstream dogma, rather as a science-centric  practice with the data being the primary tool to leverage, using multitude of techniques. Implication is that machine learning is a secondary tool on top of data in practicing data science. This attitude would help causality playing a major role shifting modern data science forward.

Computable function analogs of natural learning and intelligence may not exist

Optimal learning : Meta-optimization

Many papers directly equate “machine” learning problem, algorithmic learning oppose to human or animal learning, with optimisation problem. Unfortunately, contrary to common belief  machine learning is not an optimisation problem. For example, take optimal learning strategy, a replace learning with optimisation and we end up having and absurd terms of optimal optimisation strategy at one point. 

Turing machine (Wikipedia)

Sound like practiced machine learning is a meta-optimisation problem, rather than a learning as humans do.

Computable functions to learning

Fundamentally, we do not know how human learning can be mapped into an algorithm or if there are computable function analogs of human learning or if human intelligence and its artificial analog can be represented as Turing computable manner.

Critical look on why deployed machine learning model performance degrade quickly

Illustration of William of Ockham 
(Wikipedia)

One of the major problems in using so called machine learning model, usually a supervised model, in so called deployment, meaning it will serve new data points which were not in the training or test set,  with great astonishment, modellers or data scientist observe that model's performance degrade quickly or it doesn't perform as good as test set performance. We earlier ruled out that underspecification would not be the main cause. Here we proposed that the primary reason of such performance degradation lies on the usage of hold out method in judging generalised performance solely.

Why model test performance does not reflect in deployment? Understanding overfitting

Major contributing factor is due to inaccurate meme of overfitting which actually meant overtraining and connecting overtraining erroneously to generalisation solely.  This was discussed earlier here as understanding overfitting. Overfitting is not about how good  is the function approximation compared to other subsets of the dataset of the same “model” works. Hence, the hold-out method (test/train) of measuring performances  does not  provide sufficient and necessary conditions to judge model’s generalisation ability: with this approach we can not detect overfitting (in Occam’s razor sense) and as well the deployment performance. 

How to mimic deployment performance?

This depends on the use case but the most promising approaches lies in adaptive analysis and detected distribution shifts and build models accordingly. However, the answer to this question is still an open research.

A practical understanding of ergodicity

Preamble

In this tutorial, we will provide a brief introduction on what does ergodicity means and how to detect when a dynamical system behaves ergodically. The very definition of ergodicity is not uniform in the literature, especially definitions of Boltzmann and Birkhoff are not the same. So, one should talk about a set of ergodicity, i.e., ergodic theorems, rather than a single one. We follow the basic definition that, the system is ergodic for a given observable when the ensemble-averaged value of the observable is the same as its time-averaged value. But beware that this definition is a purely statistical definition and does not reflect Boltzmann's ergodicity from Physics.

Boltzmann: Father of ergodicity
(Wikipedia)

What are the ensemble and time averaging?

The ensemble is a fancy word. It doesn't mean a group of musical instruments but it is short for the statistical ensemble. It is developed by Gibbs, an American theoretical physicist. Essentially all possible state of a physical system. In statistics, this actually has another name, a sample space.
For example, sample space for the outcome of two fair coins tossed at the same time would be
$$ \Omega = \{HH, HT, TH, TT\}$$
Let's say we represent them as bits $H=1, T=0$ and we want to compute an observable $\mathscr{A}$, the sum of outcomes, in the entire ensemble would read.
$$\Omega_{\mathscr{A}} = \{2,1,1,0\}$$
And the ensemble average, arithmetic mean, would be $\langle \mathscr{A} \rangle_{ensemble} = 1.0$. A time-averaging can be computed via an experiment, so-called trials. Let's say we had 6 trials
$$ \Omega_{time} = \{HH, TH, HH, HT, TH, HT\}$$
and time-averaged observable will be $\langle \mathscr{A} \rangle_{time} = 1.33$. Note that larger the trials time-averaged values approach to ensemble averaged ones.

Note that this sounds very naive and useless example, but if we have very large sample space with the complicated setting, so-called in thermodynamic ensembles and limits, computing time-averaged values are much easier, whereby computing ensemble average is intractable, most of the case in statistical physics.

Connection to the law of large numbers 

Statistically  inclined readers might catch that the above definition sounds like the law of large numbers. It is indeed the strong form of the law of large numbers and it is a special case of an ergodic theorem.


Conclusions: Why would I care about ergodicity?

Apart from the intellectual appeal, ergodicity is very important in statistical physics. Almost all computations rely on the ergodic theorems. So-called N-body systems are simulated based on this for computing physical properties. Ergodicity pops up everywhere from economics to deep learning.

Further Reading with Notes

The literature is vast in ergodicity. Due to its mathematical nature, text on ergodicity can easily be non-accessible for an average scientist, well, even for an average mathematician.

• Modern Ergodic Theory, Joel L, Lebowitz and Oliver Penrose link (excellent for an introduction)
• Computational Ergodic Theory, Choe, link (advanced text)
• An introduction to Chaos and Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics, link (explains why Boltzmann's ergodicity is different)
• Deep Learning and complexity: link (ergodicity in spectra, different kind of ergodicity)
• Ergodicity and economics: link (ergodicity in risk decisions, different kind of ergodicity)

Please cite as follows:

 @misc{suezen23lpc, 

     title = {A practical understanding of ergodicity}, 

     howpublished = {\url{http://science-memo.blogspot.com/2020/01/a-practical-understanding-of-ergodicity.html}}, 

     author = {Mehmet Süzen},

     year = {2023}

}  

Postscript notes

• Sample space and ensemble are not synonymous. Ensemble is a special type of sample space where by all unique combinations are exhausted for a given system, i.e., defined event set.
• Origins of ergodicity goes back to Boltzmann but Gibbs's ensembles also provides a conceptual parallels. An ensembles could be thought as a distinct measurement protocols. Then the question of ensemble equivalence is similar to to question of ergodicity, i.e., in a strict mathematical sense and still an analogy that if two protocols are equivalent, because technically a time-averaging would also curate a different set.  Only distinction is that time-averaging is tied to a a given ensemble. 
• Law of large numbers and ergodicity:  There is a deep connection between law of large numbers and ergodicity.  The ergodicity of von Neumann-Birkhoff means visiting all possible states are considered. Given advanced level  language used in definitions of ergodicity and law of large numbers, invoking measure theory made difficult to understand that two concepts overlaps for practical purposes. However, both appears to have multiple different inceptions. Strong form of law of large numbers overlaps with  von Neumann-Birkhoff ergodicity.