They're pretty much the same, and have nothing to do with...
"First, you have to understand a very important concept: in some systems, what’s best for a group is not necessarily what’s best for the individuals who make up the group. In other words, the total wealth of a group of people could be increasing, while almost everyone making up that group could be seeing their wealth diminish. When this happens, we say we have a non-ergodic system. If the system was ergodic, what’s happening to the collective would also translate to all individuals."
...which is how the article defines "ergodic" in the section with that name at the start.
The physics/economics definition is basically that time average = ensemble average. (The term "expectation value" is used in the Nature paper you reference, but that amounts to the same thing.) But individuals do not experience the ensemble average. A condition on averages is not the same as a condition on individual outcomes.
That’s how I used the term. YC experiences the ensemble average, while individuals are unable to realize their expected value because they only have one lifetime.
Which could be equal to the time average, and thereby satisfy the definition of "ergodic" that was given, without in any way contradicting this:
> while individuals are unable to realize their expected value because they only have one lifetime.
I am not disputing that this happens. I am only disputing the use of the term "non-ergodic" to describe it, or the term "ergodic" to describe a hypothetical world where every individual experienced exactly the average outcome.
