This assumes a bit too much rigor in common language.  When most people wonder "what's guaranteed in life", they really mean "what kinds of events and causal links are so common in my context that I should give high probability to their occurence".

The common answer "death and taxes" shows this well.  One of them is far more likely than the other.

I suspect that this is a bit too much of an anlytical and legible framework.  the VAST majority of human interaction is not based on explicit rules or negotiated contracts, it's based on socially-evolved heuristics for who to trust to do what under what conditions, and then each individual has variance in their compliance and expectations, almost none of which are ever stated clearly.

I'd love to see 'institution and constitution design' replaced with 'institution and constitution studies'.   Coordination is a word that hides a number of important sub-topics about enforcement/agreement for behaviors among misaligned individuals.

sorry for being a bit combative and terse.  Edited to be clearer, and perhaps gentler.  Mostly "generate discussion" is not a clear reason - what do you want from the discussion?

[edited to clarify.  apologies for oversimplifying. ]

Right.  If your goal is to generate discussion for its own sake, it's less likely to be welcomed.  You need a reason for wanting the discussion, and that will determine how and whether to go about it here..  If your goal is to get some help in your understanding of the world and finding whether and how this idea fits into current knowledge and models, then shortform is a good start, and based on engagement (or not), you can expand to a longer post highlighting how it differs from current models and when it's helpful.

in summary: this is not a place to proselytize or promulgate ideas. It's a place to cooperatively explore what is true and how we know it.  There are LOTS of exceptions and subtlety in specific topics that are already in the Overton window around here, and I wish there were fewer, but for new/unpopular ideas, start with curiosity and learning for yourself, not with pushing or convincing others.

Edit: also, if it's unpopular/criticized due to complexity of long trains of inference, or large inferential distance from the more popular ideas/models, it's a VERY good tactic to break it down into smaller pieces, which you can discuss independently.  This is not "write more, in a series that can't be understood until complete", it's more "figure out the cruxes and individual atoms of disagreement/unpopularity, and resolve them in isolation". 

This may be valuable in less-than-adversarial complex equilibria.  Even if things aren't controlled or predicted from outside, they contain lots of forces that are pushing toward over-simple optimization (see https://www.lesswrong.com/w/moloch).  Pushing away from optimal can add slack (https://subgenius.fandom.com/wiki/Slack).  

Only skimmed, but I think you need to include COST of early action times the probability of false-alarm in the calculation.   

The high number of false positives silently trains us to wait

For me, the high number of false positives loudly and correctly trains me to wait.  Bayes for the win - every false alarm is evidence that my signal is noisy.  As a lot of economists say, "the optimal error rate is not 0".
 

How can someone inside a universe tell which type it is?

Also, a lot of thinking about paradoxes and extremely-unlikely-foretold-events misses what's likely to be MY motivation for testing/fighting/breaking the system: amusement value.  I find unlikely events to be funny, and finding more and more contortions to be adversarial about a prophesy would be great fun.

I don't know the reference myself, and I'd probably recommend against using insider shortcut phrases with people who aren't already aware.  For most people who don't already have the background knowledge to understand it from your explanation, a link isn't going to help them much.

For the kind of person who WILL benefit from a link, I'd recommend a more general one - perhaps LessWrong overall, or https://www.lesswrong.com/w/probability-theory.

A bias against drugs is very different from "drugs are always bad".  It's very reasonable to say "I'd prefer not to mess with my body via fairly blunt chemical intervention, but there are lots of exceptions for specific cases where the risk is worth it".  

Not taking drugs IS better, in the median case of a drug being offered to you.  It's just that the variance is wide - sometimes it'd be extremely bad (say, narcotics before a road-trip), sometimes it's quite good (antibiotics when you have pneumonia).  Often it's less clear, and having a default position against this kind of intervention is probably OK.