Re: Complexity
Sabri wrote: That must be the Marsden effect. He has a tendency to put people to sleep. i've seen him give talks, and he's a fine, dynamic speaker. But this literary trend he is a part of is a dead end. I have one of his books with Hughes from 1976, A short course in fluid mechanics and it goes Lemma, Lemma, Theorem, Lemma, Theorem, Theorem, Theorem, so forth. it would be interesting to compare this, for example, to Arnold's work on fluid stability. The Soviets tend to be much more down to earth on this stuff. tho i will say the commutative diagrams look splendid in the Abraham/Marsden/Ratiu book. One wonders what kind of fluid mechanics is that. *!)#*!)@!!! I view him more of a painter than a mathematician. His papers and books always look very beautiful i love a nice looking piece of math, in fact i tend to get it only if i can see the artwork effort which went into creating it. but somehow a whole section of the topology/nonlinear-dynamics expository writing falls flat on this score. and it should be just the opposiite: a global, geometric way of viewing dynamics ought to feel right to the eyes almost effortlessly. Marsden's Elementary Classical Analysis is a fine book in the Proposition/Lemma/Proof category. but it doesnt pretend to be anything other than an undergrad math text in analysis. ultimately, it comes down to this, does the dry terse proposition/proof/lemma style of the manifolds/topology stuff add anything worthwhile to nonlinear dynamics work? for me, no. it adds instead to the hype aspect of the subject, because it adds interesting looking headlines without any insight attached. (and Marsden has QUITE A BIT of insight into dynamics). les
Re: Complexity
Les: i love a nice looking piece of math, in fact i tend to get it only if i can see the artwork effort which went into creating it. Between you and I, me too. Not only that, I pay great attention to make my mathematics writing look beautiful. Unlike most people believe, mathematics is not about numbers at all. It is about patterns and structures. I heard him speak a few times as well, once on dynamic stability, and he made the topic so easy to understand that I couldn't believe that he is the same person who wrote those papers. I am familiar with his early work, until the late 1980s, in mechanics and don't know what he did after that, but the area in which he was working prior to 1990s died. Not that there is nothing left to do in there but that what is left is very difficult for anyone to attack, and more importantly, doesn't sell any more. I like Marsden though. A very smart guy. Best, Sabri
Re: Complexity
I was wading through the mails on PEN-L and just saw this. Les: i liked his cartoon books on dynamics very much. it was his text w/Marsden and Ratiu that puts me to sleep. That must be the Marsden effect. He has a tendency to put people to sleep. I have one of his books with Hughes from 1976, A short course in fluid mechanics and it goes Lemma, Lemma, Theorem, Lemma, Theorem, Theorem, Theorem, so forth. One wonders what kind of fluid mechanics is that. I view him more of a painter than a mathematician. His papers and books always look very beautiful, sort of like the works of Darrel Duffie, the financial mathematician. Whether his readers can easily understand what is in them or not is a secondary issue to Marsden. He is quite smart though. Moreover, I love the quotations he makes. Here is what he quoted in the opening of the book I mentioned above: All of the true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies Books of Bokonon (Kurt Vonnegut) Best, Sabri
Re: Complexity
Thanks, Michael. I like your stuff too. I gather Sam is stepping down. Have heard various rumors as to who is replacing him, but no definite word. SFI is an ongoing upheaval. Doyne Farmer of there and QF, was once a part of Ralph Abraham's Santa Cruz Chaos Collective, described in the popular Gleick book. Personally I enjoy being a part of the International Chaos Mafia, an interesting (but unofficial) collection of people, :-). BTW, although I would say that catastrophe theory is more disruptive of conventional economic theory than is chaos theory, the latter does completely blow rational expectations out the window due to the butterfly effect, a point that I have pounded away on in many places and venues for a long time. Barkley Rosser - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Complexity Barkley's comments on chaos/catastrophe/power law theories are first rate. By the way, Sam Bowles runs the econ. program at the Santa Fe Institute. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
final word on complexity
Well, folks, I am going to check off out of this list very shortly. Just way too busy. Thought I would add a final observation on the complexity discussion, especially as it relates to financial markets. When one looks closely at what is going on in most of the complex dynamics models of financial markets, ultimately one finds that there is a basically very simple and intuitive, common sense idea at the root of what is going on, the sort of thing that our numbers-loving, but math-hating, expert on financial markets, Doug Henwood, would appreciate. The basic root is that whenever trend-chasing speculators (or chartists, or noise traders or whatever one wants to call them) outweigh supposedly fundamentalist value investors (those who buy low and sell high), then the market will tend to become destabilized and will be open to exhibiting a wide variety of complex dynamics, from the crash scenario of Zeeman's catastrophe theory model of 1974, through the chaotic bubbles of Day and Huang circa 1990 through the more complicated dynamics exhibited by the heterogeneous interacting agents quasi-econophysical models increasingly popular now (a good example is Asset Pricing Under Endogenous Expectations in an Artificial Stock Market, [the so-called Santa Fe stock market model] W. Brian Arthur, John H. Holland, Blake LeBaron, Richard Palmer, and Paul Tayler, in _The Economy as an Evolvijnhg Complex System II_, ed. by W.B. Arthur, S.N. Durlauf, and D.A. Lane, 1997, Addison-Wesley, pp. 15-44). Indeed, part of the throwing of the baby out with the bathwater that happened with catastrophe theory for economics involved severe criticism of the Zeeman model on grounds that the destabilizing chartist traders violated rational expectations, therefore his model was supposedly not scientific. This now sounds ludicrous, but was taken very seriously in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was declared that of course, it is obvious if there are irrational speculators the market can be destabilized, but such an outcome was rejected because of course supposedly all investors were rational, hah! Anyway, I do expect to be at the ASSA meetings in San Diego, doing some URPEfying, even officially, so hope to see some of you then, if not sooner. Might get back on the list again before then, but make no promises. So behave yourselves, you all, in the meantime. Barkley Rosser Editor, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization Professor of Economics and Kirby L. Kramer, Jr. Professor James Madison University website: http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb journal email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Complexity
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:57:17 -0400, Barkley Rosser wrote: Briefly, there were indeed intellectual bubbles regarding cybernetics, catastrophe theory, chaos theory, and complexity theory, which rose and then fell. What's your view on Didier Sornette and log-periodic power laws? Another intellectual bubble developing? I've got his Why Stock Markets Crash and there is some good stuff there, but he appears to be trying to extend his theory into a general principle of stock market movements. HE's also predicted economic collapse somewhere around 2050, which is usually the economic iconoclast's equivalent of jumping the shark. dd
RES: [PEN-L] Complexity
What's your view on Didier Sornette and log-periodic power laws? Another intellectual bubble developing? I've got his Why Stock Markets Crash and there is some good stuff there, but he appears to be trying to extend his theory into a general principle of stock market movements. HE's also predicted economic collapse somewhere around 2050, which is usually the economic iconoclast's equivalent of jumping the shark. dd Well, Kondratieff in the 1920s spoke about 50-70 years cycles. This would give, for instance, 1929-1999-2049... Renato Pompeu
Re: Complexity
Barkley wrote: I think Ralph Abraham is a genius. i liked his cartoon books on dynamics very much. it was his text w/ Marsden and Ratiu that puts me to sleep. He also discovered chaotic hysteresis, although I am the one who coined that term. can you send me your paper on this offlist, it sounds interesting? the one on your wesbite has no figures. other bubbles which have subsided some: 1.) chaos theory was going to point the way to a solution to turbulence. hasn't happened yet. 2.) complex dynamics projected onto low dimensional subspaces: nice idea, havent seen any actual implementation in a problem which begs for reduction of dimension. 3.) fractional dimension fad: there was a time when everyone published a fractional dimension for their time series. what was that supposed to prove??? les schaffer
Re: Complexity
Sabri, The fad phase of cybernetics was the 1950s and 1960s. Today it lives in modern complexity stuff. The fad phase of catastrophe theory was the 1970s. Today it is dead, except when appearing under other names, which it is increasingly doing so again. The fad phase for chaos theory was the 1980s, at the end of which was when the Wiggins book appeared. Today, chaos theory is just normal science. The fad phase for complexity was the 1990s, and it is now essentially normal science also, broken down into all its constituent parts, which are very much alive. Somebody commented that an important aspect of this involves journalists hyping things with schlocky books that sell a lot and make money. For chaos theory the biggie was by James Gleick, 1987. For complexity it was Waldrop in 1992. These also bring out the overhyping debunkers, with Horgan's End of Science, 1996, being the model. The first batch overhype and the second batch overdehype. One sign of all this is to look at the mathematicians, who, although also subject to a certain amount of faddism, tended to be much less affected by all this and, especially the Russian ones, maintained more reasoned views on these things. Thus they never hyped catastrophe theory all that much, seeing it as a perfectly respectable and useful sub-branch of bifurcation theory. Therefore, they never felt the need to purge it and ignore it, as did the lesser breeds like the economists, who are so busy trying to show what hot-ass mathoids they are, even worse than their physics envy, that they must huff and puff to keep up (and down) with these various manifestations of fictitious intellectual capital. The most level-headed book on catastrophe theory is by Vladimir Arnol'd, a Russian, Catastrophe Theory, 3rd edn., 1992, Springer-Verlag. Barkley Rosser - Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Complexity Les: i agree chaos and complexity studies have a fad __component__. Les, As I know it, fad means craze, trend, mania and the like. In that sense, anyone who knows some math knows that chaos is a fad. Take a look at the Preface of that beautiful book by Stephen Wiggins where he says: Finally, although nonlinear dynamics and chaos have become something of a fad over a decade it is still true that an understanding of nonlinear phenomena requires a solid mathematical background and a lot of hard work. Topology was like that too at some point, although it never got the publicity chaos did, but this does not mean that topology is useless or irrelevant. Nor chaos as a theory is useless or irrelevant. Of course, it is useful and relevant. Even game theory can be useful, dispite my doubts. But none of these have anything to do with their fadness, whatever that means. When you are an insider, you view things differently. your friend is missing something. I doubt it. People like him don't miss much in such regards. By the way, at some point in his mathematics career he said, I am not gonna finish this PhD and started to read about the history of art. About the same time I started reading about the history of Jazz, so this is why I remember it. what does he think of Goedel's work??? to my mind his theorem highlights BOTH the strengths and weaknesses of axiomatic systems, as he utiliized ingenious techniques to derive said theroems. I better put you in touch with him so that he can answer your question personally. He was the first person from whom I heard about Goedel and at the time he was 18 and I was 17. Best, Sabri PS: Is Marsden you mentioned is Jerry Marsden?
Re: Complexity
Sornette's book is clearly a wild overhype, although containing a lot of useful stuff. I am having it reviewed for the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. It is part of a broader current fad, which is a subset of complex dynamics, the so-called econophysics movement. Power laws are their big thing, which they like to derive from all sorts of physics laws, with no way to distinguish between which of these works better than another. The kernel of their stuff is that power laws really are an empirical reality that has not been very well dealt with or recognized by most economists. (For the uninitiated, these imply the fat tails, or leptokurtosis, that we see in all financial returns time series, that arise from the extreme volatility, the bubbles and crashes in these financial markets that generate all that fictitious capital, extreme observations that would not occur in a normal or Gaussian distribution). OTOH, the origins of this kind of analysis go all the way back to Bachelier in 1900 and includes work by Pareto not much later, as well as by Mandelbrot in the early 1960s. Although the latter is a mathematician primarily, the former two were more economists than anything else. A problem with much of the econophysics lit is that many of these people know little econ. They have some simple-minded view of what econ is all about and so appear among economists acting like they are here to save us from all our ignorance and stupidity. There is certainly plenty of that around, but it does not help when the would-be savior barely knows what he is talking about in econ, even if his math is hot and his physics is maybe also, sort of, atlhough this is definitely now a major fad and so we (or at least I) are (am) seeing a lot of it that is very crappy. Much of this appearing in physics journals, e.g. Physical Review E and Physica D, although there is now a new journal edited by both economists and physicicsts, Quantitative Finance, which is pretty good and where a lot of it is now appearing. A lot of Sornette's original papers have appeared there. The founder of it is the old chaos theorist and physicist from the Santa Fe Institute, J. Doyne Farmer. I think there is a lot of interest going on here, but the economists and the physicists need to keep in better communication along the way. Barkley Rosser - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 2:48 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Complexity On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:57:17 -0400, Barkley Rosser wrote: Briefly, there were indeed intellectual bubbles regarding cybernetics, catastrophe theory, chaos theory, and complexity theory, which rose and then fell. What's your view on Didier Sornette and log-periodic power laws? Another intellectual bubble developing? I've got his Why Stock Markets Crash and there is some good stuff there, but he appears to be trying to extend his theory into a general principle of stock market movements. HE's also predicted economic collapse somewhere around 2050, which is usually the economic iconoclast's equivalent of jumping the shark. dd
Re: RES: [PEN-L] Complexity
Well, I just commented on Sornette, I guess. I have defended long waves on this list before, but I do not think Sornette's methods prove they exist. Yes, these kinds of predictions are the sort of stuff for hyping sales of the book. Again, indeed the power law stuff that is the main point of his book is for real. But he neither discovered nor is the main student of it, maybe just the guy getting to the bookshelves with the first really hypy book coming out of it. I know the very knowledgeable reviewer I have looking at it does not think all that much of it, although he is very respectful of the papers Sornette has published in the journal, Quantitative Finance. I would note that the power law stuff can also be used to study city size distributions (often under the name Zipf's Law) and income and wealth distributions (the original Pareto distribution, which is more skewed than just your old garden variety lognormal). Duncan Foley has some of his students at the New School looking at this latter sort of stuff, which I have a good deal of respect for. Barkley Rosser - Original Message - From: Renato Pompeu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:10 PM Subject: [PEN-L] RES: [PEN-L] Complexity What's your view on Didier Sornette and log-periodic power laws? Another intellectual bubble developing? I've got his Why Stock Markets Crash and there is some good stuff there, but he appears to be trying to extend his theory into a general principle of stock market movements. HE's also predicted economic collapse somewhere around 2050, which is usually the economic iconoclast's equivalent of jumping the shark. dd Well, Kondratieff in the 1920s spoke about 50-70 years cycles. This would give, for instance, 1929-1999-2049... Renato Pompeu
Re: Complexity
Les, Guess you had better send me your email address and we can deal with certain matters offlist. Sorry figures not available on the website version. They were supposed to be there. I got the chaotic hysteresis thing from his cartoon book with Shaw in 1987. The first economic application was by Tonu Puu of Sweden in a business cycle model in his 1989 _Nonlinear Economic Dynamics_ (1st edn), Springer-Verlag, but I only figured this out later. I also cooked up the term chaotic bubble (they are speculative bubbles that follow a chaotic dynamic, duh), although the first application predated the term, being in a very influential paper by my editorial predecessor, Richard H. Day and his student Weihong Huang, Bulls, Bears, and Market Sheep, JEBO, 1990, vol. 14, pp. 299-329. Real world bubbles look more like this than the usual sort of smoothly moving babies one sees in most theoretical models. Yeah, the stuff with Marsden, etc. tends to be more soporific, definitely not acid-drenched. Regarding your specific points: 1) The chaos control literature is supposed to deal with this and is very active. The econ applications of this are way behind and often pretty stupid. In physics it is really getting somewhere, especially in the area of celestial mechanics (controlling spacecraft) and in signals management. 2) Reduction of dimension? All of complex dynamics? Certainly in the empirical chaos lit there has been a failure to find much in the way of low dimensional deterministic chaos. Is this what you are referring to? In other areas, e.g., catastrophe theory models of species collapse and extinction from overharvesting, there is certainly a low enough dimensionality in some models to be very useful. 3) Do you meanfractal or fractional, although these are certainly related. This stuff is still be studied and used in time series analysis, especially for long memory stuff, which also appears to be there in a lot of financial time series. Barkley Rosser - Original Message - From: Les Schaffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 7:11 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Complexity Barkley wrote: I think Ralph Abraham is a genius. i liked his cartoon books on dynamics very much. it was his text w/ Marsden and Ratiu that puts me to sleep. He also discovered chaotic hysteresis, although I am the one who coined that term. can you send me your paper on this offlist, it sounds interesting? the one on your wesbite has no figures. other bubbles which have subsided some: 1.) chaos theory was going to point the way to a solution to turbulence. hasn't happened yet. 2.) complex dynamics projected onto low dimensional subspaces: nice idea, havent seen any actual implementation in a problem which begs for reduction of dimension. 3.) fractional dimension fad: there was a time when everyone published a fractional dimension for their time series. what was that supposed to prove??? les schaffer
Re: Complexity
Barkley: Today, chaos theory is just normal science. Exactly! And a good one I would say. This has been my point all along. I am sick and tired of hearing about the soliton revolution, chaos revolution, complexity revolution and the like. These are not revolutions. These are natural/normal qualitative turns in the progress of science, which is hardly linear. Best, Sabri
Re: Complexity
- Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Barkley: Today, chaos theory is just normal science. Exactly! And a good one I would say. This has been my point all along. I am sick and tired of hearing about the soliton revolution, chaos revolution, complexity revolution and the like. These are not revolutions. These are natural/normal qualitative turns in the progress of science, which is hardly linear. Best, Sabri But revolution sells; normal is boring in the land of Hype and Lies. Ian
Re: Complexity
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Complexity it's interesting (and perhaps sad from Sabri's perspective) that the whole idea of scientific revolutions was pushed by many people on the left (embracing Kuhn). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Sabri Oncu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 2:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Complexity Barkley: Today, chaos theory is just normal science. Exactly! And a good one I would say. This has been my point all along. I am sick and tired of hearing about the soliton revolution, chaos revolution, complexity revolution and the like. These are not revolutions. These are natural/normal qualitative turns in the progress of science, which is hardly linear. Best, Sabri
complexity
With regard to this question of revolutions, I think that the one where there may be a political element is the continuing undervaluation of catastrophe theory. Chaos theory and complexity theory are much more easily house-broken ideologically, so to speak. After all, there is a right-wing, Austrian-derived, complexity theory, how free markets are self-organizing and all that, which actually dates back to Hayek himself. A curious aspect of how the hyping and dehyping can distort analysis shows up in the analysis of the 1987 stock market crash. This occurred near the peak of the chaos theory intellectual bubble, but well after the crash (and overshoot in my view) of the catastrophe theory bubble. Everything was to explained by chaos theory, nothing by catastrophe theory. So, you had all kinds of chickens running around with their head cut off clucking about how the stock market crash proved the existence of the butterfly effect (or sensitive dependence on initial conditions) of chaos theory, when it did no such thing. In fact, although nobody of any prominence mentioned it at the time, the 1974 paper in the Journal of Mathematical Economics by E.Christopher Zeeman, vol. 1, pp. 39-44, On the Unstable Behavior of the Stock Exchanges, had much more to say about what happened in 1987 than did any chaos theory model. It was the first paper on cat theory in econ and was one that had been subjected to truly idiotic critiques in the late 1970s. Today its value is well understood and it is frequently cited in the current complexity, heterogeneous agents, econophysics kinds of stuff that is now becoming almost standard to explain what the hell is going on in stock markets. But, I think the more revolutionary tailings coming out of catastrophe theory are one not so obvious reason why it remains out of bounds to most economists. Barkley Rosser
Re: Complexity
Jim: it's interesting (and perhaps sad from Sabri's perspective) that the whole idea of scientific revolutions was pushed by many people on the left (embracing Kuhn). I may be a leftist but whatever I say about science is based on my personal experiences in the wonderland as one of the troops. Not only has this been the most humbling experience I had (boy, this mathematics is very difficult) but also has been a laboratory to experiment with dialectics. I guess my objection mainly derives from what Ian said: But revolution sells; normal is boring in the land of Hype and Lies. The same goes for financial markets too. When people learn that I was a market person, most of them say, It must have been very exciting. What excitement are you talking about? I always say. It was the most boring experience I had. Just dp/p, that is all! How exciting can that be? Sabri
Re: Complexity
Barkley's comments on chaos/catastrophe/power law theories are first rate. By the way, Sam Bowles runs the econ. program at the Santa Fe Institute. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Complexity
i agree chaos and complexity studies have a fad __component__. Sabri Oncu writes: : However, with what I know about chaos, and it is not much, mind : you, my subjective judgment is that chaos is a fad as : topology was once to mathematical analysis or game theory : was to economics. topology has interesting applications in quantum gravity. as a branch of analysis i think it has real beauty in terms of classifications of sets. on the other hand, there is a branch of workers in nonlinear dynamics who have gone topology-beserk: see Abraham and Marsden, for example. i just read an news article this morning that a researcher in Germany has devised a unique structural element using what he calls Topological interlocking of protective tiles.. : He once said this, in exaggeration, : maybe: all this chaos theory does is proving the non-existence : of the solutions of this or that nonlinear dynamical problem. your friend is missing something. it is true that rigorous chaos theory proves the non-existence of certain kinds of solutions to dynamical systems. that is, the non-existence of classical style solutions (and failure of convergence of orbit expansions in perturbation parameter) to differential equations. i.e., the clockwork solar system which exhibits strong (quasi-)periodic behavior. but look at what we got in return: 1.) super-convergent expansion techniques (a la Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser) on a set of finite measure in phase space, and which also show explictly where the failure to converge lies. breakup of invariant tori (KAM et al): geometric descriptions of how quasi-periodic behavior tends towards chaotic behavior and attendant sensitive dependence on initial condx. 2.) shadowing lemmas/theorems: reassurances and proofs that the classical approximate solutions shadow or tail the real solution in some sense, so that they have a limited but rigorous justification. 3.) advances in geometric thinking on dynamical systems; realization of Poincare's program. one i remember from the late 80's turnstile's (pieces of previously existing invariant tori) that act to mix up phase space and control diffusion across webs. 4.) perturbation techniques for analytically calculating onset of homoclinic tangles, developed by yet another Russian: Melnikov. 5.) topological (!) and algebraic techniques for classifying chaotic things like the Lorenz attractor. knot holders, horseshoes, baker's transformations, symbol sequences. 6.) last but not least: we got cautionary warnings on what to be careful about in our numerical integration schemes. the fad stuff is simply what people say to their newspapers and their funding agencies, and write about in more or less popular books (the Sov's a notable exception) to what degree 1-6 are important in econ i'll leave to Prof. Rosser. : What kind of mathematics is that? As mathematicians, aren't we : supposed to solve some problems? what does he think of Goedel's work??? to my mind his theorem highlights BOTH the strengths and weaknesses of axiomatic systems, as he utiliized ingenious techniques to derive said theroems. les schaffer p.s. google: KAM theorem finite measure Melnikov method | integral | function
Re: Complexity
My view on the four C's is laid out in my Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1999, article, On the Complexity of Complex Economic Dynamics, which can be seen on my website, with a much more thorough discussion in the book I have already mentioned. Briefly, there were indeed intellectual bubbles regarding cybernetics, catastrophe theory, chaos theory, and complexity theory, which rose and then fell. However, this does not mean that therefore the ideas of the theories were wrong or misguided. Indeed, I argue that there is a clear intellectual link between them and that they are all part of the broad tent complexity view that is becoming increasingly dominant and important, not less so. The chaoplexologists should accept the designation, just as impressionist painters accepted that designation from a critic. I have recently addressed this business of fads more directly in my paper, The Rise and Fall of Catastrophe Theory Applications in Economics: Was the Baby Thrown out with the Bathwater? to which the quick answer is yes. It is also on my website. Critics like Horgan thought that they were really doing in the later C's by pointing out what happened to cat theory. But it is back big time. The collapse of the intellectual bubble overshot in the other direction and the baby was indeed thrown out with the bathwater. As editor of a journal that is a major outlet for this kind of stuff I see lots of papers using chaos theory in a more or less normal science way, to use Kuhnian terminology. The term complex is currently being less used, hence maybe was a fad. However, I see lots of papers, many of them very interesting and challenging, that use the methods and techniques of the newer (small tent) complexity theory. It is very much alive, but more in its multiple and distinct versions and parts rather than as some big whole. The very variety of definitions of complexity almost guarantees this. The term catastrophe theory has essentially been purged. The current papers using it speak of Skiba points or multiple equilibria, with some authors consciously avoiding the term because they know using it will damage their prospects of publishing their papers. The term cybernetics has also largely disappeared, although many of its ideas were folded directly into the modern small tent complexity theory where it essentially survives. Barkley Rosser http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb - Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Complexity Chris: On the basis of one hundred years of western mathematics chaos theory has produced something as mystical as the Mandelbrot set. It also produces that heart stopping moment for all of us, when we learn that the cardiac rhythm is not actually mechanically totally regular, but is in a pattern which conforms to chaos theory. Hi Chris, I happen to believe that mathematics is neither western nor eastern but a common product of all humanity. A very powerful tool that we humans have developed and something that I am deeply in love with. However, I also happen to believe as Horgan does, whom Barkley quoted in his article, that the concept of complexity more generally, not just in economics, as just the latest in a string of fads, the four C's. Complexity is one of them and chaos is another. Because it was very fashionable when I was a graduate student, I read a few books about chaos. Reading a few books on chaos or any mathematical subject for that matter doesn't mean much because you don't learn mathematics simply by reading books and agreeing with their authors, at least, to my experience. You have to work out the details and try to solve some problems, some of which, preferably, are problems that you yourself formulated. As I told Barkley, I don't know anything about complexity and because of that, complexity is a fad is just a belief of mine. I have no proof of the proposition that complexity is a fad, if it can be proved, in the first place. We will see, or, at least, I need learn more about it to make my subjective judgment about complexity. However, with what I know about chaos, and it is not much, mind you, my subjective judgment is that chaos is a fad as topology was once to mathematical analysis or game theory was to economics. I am your average neighborhood mathematician so this is not a big deal. However, some mathematicians are mistakes of God, as John Von Neumann was, and I happen to know one such mistake, a childhood friend of mine. He once said this, in exaggeration, maybe: all this chaos theory does is proving the non-existence of the solutions of this or that nonlinear dynamical problem. What kind of mathematics is that? As mathematicians, aren't we supposed to solve some problems? Best, Sabri
Re: Complexity
Les, My quick answer is that in your list 1-3 are more foundational and have little direct applications in economics. One does find quite a few applications of points 4-6, although largely in pretty theoretical and mathematically oriented literature. I think Ralph Abraham is a genius. He is also a great coiner of phrases, including the blue bagel catastrophe and chaostrophe and morphodynamics. He also discovered chaotic hysteresis, although I am the one who coined that term. His book with Marsden is hardly his farthest out, and he has become rather metaphysical in more recent years. Anybody who wants to see a really far out example should check out his _Chaos, Gaia, Eros_, 1994, New York: Harper Collins. But I like all his funky figures the best. Barkley Rosser - Original Message - From: Les Schaffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Complexity i agree chaos and complexity studies have a fad __component__. Sabri Oncu writes: : However, with what I know about chaos, and it is not much, mind : you, my subjective judgment is that chaos is a fad as : topology was once to mathematical analysis or game theory : was to economics. topology has interesting applications in quantum gravity. as a branch of analysis i think it has real beauty in terms of classifications of sets. on the other hand, there is a branch of workers in nonlinear dynamics who have gone topology-beserk: see Abraham and Marsden, for example. i just read an news article this morning that a researcher in Germany has devised a unique structural element using what he calls Topological interlocking of protective tiles.. : He once said this, in exaggeration, : maybe: all this chaos theory does is proving the non-existence : of the solutions of this or that nonlinear dynamical problem. your friend is missing something. it is true that rigorous chaos theory proves the non-existence of certain kinds of solutions to dynamical systems. that is, the non-existence of classical style solutions (and failure of convergence of orbit expansions in perturbation parameter) to differential equations. i.e., the clockwork solar system which exhibits strong (quasi-)periodic behavior. but look at what we got in return: 1.) super-convergent expansion techniques (a la Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser) on a set of finite measure in phase space, and which also show explictly where the failure to converge lies. breakup of invariant tori (KAM et al): geometric descriptions of how quasi-periodic behavior tends towards chaotic behavior and attendant sensitive dependence on initial condx. 2.) shadowing lemmas/theorems: reassurances and proofs that the classical approximate solutions shadow or tail the real solution in some sense, so that they have a limited but rigorous justification. 3.) advances in geometric thinking on dynamical systems; realization of Poincare's program. one i remember from the late 80's turnstile's (pieces of previously existing invariant tori) that act to mix up phase space and control diffusion across webs. 4.) perturbation techniques for analytically calculating onset of homoclinic tangles, developed by yet another Russian: Melnikov. 5.) topological (!) and algebraic techniques for classifying chaotic things like the Lorenz attractor. knot holders, horseshoes, baker's transformations, symbol sequences. 6.) last but not least: we got cautionary warnings on what to be careful about in our numerical integration schemes. the fad stuff is simply what people say to their newspapers and their funding agencies, and write about in more or less popular books (the Sov's a notable exception) to what degree 1-6 are important in econ i'll leave to Prof. Rosser. : What kind of mathematics is that? As mathematicians, aren't we : supposed to solve some problems? what does he think of Goedel's work??? to my mind his theorem highlights BOTH the strengths and weaknesses of axiomatic systems, as he utiliized ingenious techniques to derive said theroems. les schaffer p.s. google: KAM theorem finite measure Melnikov method | integral | function
Re: Complexity
- Original Message - From: Barkley Rosser [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think Ralph Abraham is a genius. He is also a great coiner of phrases, including the blue bagel catastrophe and chaostrophe and morphodynamics. He also discovered chaotic hysteresis, although I am the one who coined that term. His book with Marsden is hardly his farthest out, and he has become rather metaphysical in more recent years. Anybody who wants to see a really far out example should check out his _Chaos, Gaia, Eros_, 1994, New York: Harper Collins. But I like all his funky figures the best. Barkley Rosser === RA is proof academics on acid can do interesting and funny things...
Re: Complexity
Les: i agree chaos and complexity studies have a fad __component__. Les, As I know it, fad means craze, trend, mania and the like. In that sense, anyone who knows some math knows that chaos is a fad. Take a look at the Preface of that beautiful book by Stephen Wiggins where he says: Finally, although nonlinear dynamics and chaos have become something of a fad over a decade it is still true that an understanding of nonlinear phenomena requires a solid mathematical background and a lot of hard work. Topology was like that too at some point, although it never got the publicity chaos did, but this does not mean that topology is useless or irrelevant. Nor chaos as a theory is useless or irrelevant. Of course, it is useful and relevant. Even game theory can be useful, dispite my doubts. But none of these have anything to do with their fadness, whatever that means. When you are an insider, you view things differently. your friend is missing something. I doubt it. People like him don't miss much in such regards. By the way, at some point in his mathematics career he said, I am not gonna finish this PhD and started to read about the history of art. About the same time I started reading about the history of Jazz, so this is why I remember it. what does he think of Goedel's work??? to my mind his theorem highlights BOTH the strengths and weaknesses of axiomatic systems, as he utiliized ingenious techniques to derive said theroems. I better put you in touch with him so that he can answer your question personally. He was the first person from whom I heard about Goedel and at the time he was 18 and I was 17. Best, Sabri PS: Is Marsden you mentioned is Jerry Marsden?
Re: Complexity
At 2003-06-16 15:34 -0700, you quoted: An economic system is dynamically complex if its deterministic endogenous processes do not lead it asymptotically to a fixed point, a limit cycle, or an explosion. This sounds like a classic statement based on well established chaos theory but trying to embrace the concept of complexity. But being dynamically complex, which chaotic dynamics can produce under certain conditions, is an adjective and is by no means necessarily the same as complexity theory, although IMHO chaos theory probably also applies in economics. Both theories explain on the basis of western rationality how under certain conditions, quantitative changes can lead to qualitative change. These are theoretical approaches which do not historically relate to dialectical materialism, but suggest to my mind one reason why previous generations found it useful to look at phenomena from the competing contrasting viewpoints that are inherent in a dialectical approach, but which are not necessarily in mechanical logical contradiction with one another. On the basis of one hundred years of western mathematics chaos theory has produced something as mystical as the Mandelbrot set. It also produces that heart stopping moment for all of us, when we learn that the cardiac rhythm is not actually mechanically totally regular, but is in a pattern which conforms to chaos theory. Chaotic dynamical systems can sometimes flip into phenomically chaotic states. Ironically, complexity theory models how the interaction of numerous smaller units can create a higher level order. Barkely Rosser is a hero expert on this area in economics, and manages to negotiate the interface between conventional academic scholarship, and progressive interpretation, with subtle good natured humour. (Just to stifle him with praise.) I cannot keep up with the detail of the argument and would not attempt to, but it is clear to me it is making a contribution in an area of economics that conventional economists cannot afford totally to dismiss. I appreciate the serendipity of this email, which took me back to Barkley's web site, with the aid of a Google search. The URL for the actual article is http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/GENERIC.CPX.doc Journal of Economic Perspectives, Fall 1999, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 169-192 On the Complexities of Complex Economic Dynamics From this it is possible to see that Barkley is actually citing a particular writer giving a broad tent definition, with which he does not necessarily agree. Just before, he says amiably, Unsurprisingly, there is no agreed upon definition of such a complex term as complexity. Indeed, MIT's Seth Lloyd has gathered over 45 such definitions, most of these listed in Horgan (1997, Chapter 8, footnote 11, p. 303), with many of these definitions emphasizing computational or informational measures. This plethora leads Horgan (1995) to complain that we have gone from complexity to perplexity. Without doubt, this is a serious problem.
Re: Complexity
Sabri, I took this definition from Dick Day in his book on Complexity Dynamics in Economics, 1994, MIT Press. There are over 40 other definitions, but I l like this one for economic dynamics. The dynamic patterns that are ruled out are all rather regular, asymptotic convergence or simple cycles or simple exponential growth or decline. So, there must be irregularity to the dynamics of some sort. However, this irregularity cannot be due to exogenous shocks randomly arriving as in the New Classical real business cycle models. In those models, if there were no exogenous shocks, the economy would simply grow steadily, no fluctuations or cycles or anything else odd. So, the complexity must come from within the system itself. Hope this helps. Barkley Rosser http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb - Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 6:34 PM Subject: [PEN-L] Complexity Dear Barkley, Being an old-fashioned thermodynamist trained in the Truesdell school and specialized in the partial integro-differential equations of the hyperbolic kind, I never had a chance to learn about complexity theories. Would you kindly enlighten me what this from your paper Complexity in Economics means? An economic system is dynamically complex if its deterministic endogenous processes do not lead it asymptotically to a fixed point, a limit cycle, or an explosion. Best regards, Sabri
Re: Complexity
Chris, Yeah, I'm stifled (gag...!). So, to be more precise, chaotic dynamics are complex dynamics, but there are many other varieties of complex dynamics that are not chaotic, a rather long list indeed that I shall not bore the list with. For a fuller accounting of the many varietites, Volume I of the second editon of my _From Catastrophe to Chaos: A General Theory of Economic Discontinuities, Kluwer, 2000, covers the varieties pretty thoroughly. The more widely read 1991 edition is missing some of them. I would also note that all complex economic dynamics arise from nonlinear systems, but not all nonlinear systems generate complex dynamics. Barkley Rosser - Original Message - From: Chris Burford To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 2:25 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Complexity At 2003-06-16 15:34 -0700, you quoted: An economic system is dynamically complex if its deterministic endogenous processes do not lead it asymptotically to a fixed point, a limit cycle, or an explosion.This sounds like a classic statement based on well established chaos theory but trying to embrace the concept of complexity. But being dynamically complex, which chaotic dynamics can produce under certain conditions, is an adjective and is by no means necessarily the same as "complexity theory", although IMHO chaos theory probably also applies in economics.Both theories explain on the basis of western rationality how under certain conditions, quantitative changes can lead to qualitative change. These are theoretical approaches which do not historically relate to dialectical materialism, but suggest to my mind one reason why previous generations found it useful to look at phenomena from the competing contrasting viewpoints that are inherent in a dialectical approach, but which are not necessarily in mechanical logical contradiction with one another.On the basis of one hundred years of western mathematics chaos theory has produced something as mystical as the Mandelbrot set. It also produces that heart stopping moment for all of us, when we learn that the cardiac rhythm is not actually mechanically totally regular, but is in a pattern which conforms to chaos theory.Chaotic dynamical systems can sometimes flip into phenomically chaotic states.Ironically, complexity theory models how the interaction of numerous smaller units can create a higher level order. Barkely Rosser is a hero expert on this area in economics, and manages to negotiate the interface between conventional academic scholarship, and progressive interpretation, with subtle good natured humour. (Just to stifle him with praise.) I cannot keep up with the detail of the argument and would not attempt to, but it is clear to me it is making a contribution in an area of economics that conventional economists cannot afford totally to dismiss.I appreciate the serendipity of this email, which took me back to Barkley's web site, with the aid of a Google search. The URL for the actual article ishttp://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/GENERIC.CPX.doc Journal of Economic Perspectives, Fall 1999, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 169-192On the Complexities of Complex Economic DynamicsFrom this it is possible to see that Barkley is actually citing a particular writer giving a "broad tent" definition, with which he does not necessarily agree. Just before, he says amiably, Unsurprisingly, there is no agreed upon definition of such a complex term as "complexity." Indeed, MIT's Seth Lloyd has gathered over 45 such definitions, most of these listed in Horgan (1997, Chapter 8, footnote 11, p. 303), with many of these definitions emphasizing computational or informational measures. This plethora leads Horgan (1995) to complain that "we have gone from complexity to perplexity." Without doubt, this is a serious problem.
Re: Complexity
Chris: On the basis of one hundred years of western mathematics chaos theory has produced something as mystical as the Mandelbrot set. It also produces that heart stopping moment for all of us, when we learn that the cardiac rhythm is not actually mechanically totally regular, but is in a pattern which conforms to chaos theory. Hi Chris, I happen to believe that mathematics is neither western nor eastern but a common product of all humanity. A very powerful tool that we humans have developed and something that I am deeply in love with. However, I also happen to believe as Horgan does, whom Barkley quoted in his article, that the concept of complexity more generally, not just in economics, as just the latest in a string of fads, the four Cs. Complexity is one of them and chaos is another. Because it was very fashionable when I was a graduate student, I read a few books about chaos. Reading a few books on chaos or any mathematical subject for that matter doesn't mean much because you don't learn mathematics simply by reading books and agreeing with their authors, at least, to my experience. You have to work out the details and try to solve some problems, some of which, preferably, are problems that you yourself formulated. As I told Barkley, I don't know anything about complexity and because of that, complexity is a fad is just a belief of mine. I have no proof of the proposition that complexity is a fad, if it can be proved, in the first place. We will see, or, at least, I need learn more about it to make my subjective judgment about complexity. However, with what I know about chaos, and it is not much, mind you, my subjective judgment is that chaos is a fad as topology was once to mathematical analysis or game theory was to economics. I am your average neighborhood mathematician so this is not a big deal. However, some mathematicians are mistakes of God, as John Von Neumann was, and I happen to know one such mistake, a childhood friend of mine. He once said this, in exaggeration, maybe: all this chaos theory does is proving the non-existence of the solutions of this or that nonlinear dynamical problem. What kind of mathematics is that? As mathematicians, aren't we supposed to solve some problems? Best, Sabri
Complexity
Dear Barkley, Being an old-fashioned thermodynamist trained in the Truesdell school and specialized in the partial integro-differential equations of the hyperbolic kind, I never had a chance to learn about complexity theories. Would you kindly enlighten me what this from your paper Complexity in Economics means? An economic system is dynamically complex if its deterministic endogenous processes do not lead it asymptotically to a fixed point, a limit cycle, or an explosion. Best regards, Sabri
Re: Complexity
Sabri Oncu wrote: Being an old-fashioned thermodynamist trained in the Truesdell school and specialized in the partial integro-differential equations of the hyperbolic kind, And you have a problem with Western rationality? Doug
Re: Complexity
Sabri Oncu wrote: Being an old-fashioned thermodynamist trained in the Truesdell school and specialized in the partial integro-differential equations of the hyperbolic kind, And you have a problem with Western rationality? Doug Hey! This was exactly my problem. I have been an active participant of this publication business with about a dozen papers from 1989 to 1992 and just checked my citation record a few months ago to discover that I had more than forty for those I wrote in those three years. But, as I was writing those papers, I had always kept asking myself, why the hell am I writing these papers? What is the objective? Why? This is the most dangerous question that I can think of, irrespective of what you do, and try to teach my son not to ask that dangerous question as best as I can, but to no avail. The problem must be in his genes that I inherited from my parents and, who knows, maybe the genes his mother inherited from her parents play some role, too. Best, Sabri
Complexity sets in
Listen to the damned It is not Islam or poverty that succours terrorism, but the failure to be heard Orhan Pamuk Saturday September 29, 2001 The Guardian As I walked the streets of Istanbul after watching the unbelievable images of the twin towers in New York blazing and collapsing, I met one of my neighbours. Sir, have you seen, they have bombed America, he said, and added fiercely, They did the right thing. This angry old man, who is not religious, who struggles to make a living by doing minor repair jobs and gardening, who drinks in the evening and argues with his wife, had not yet seen the appalling scenes on television, but had heard only that some people had done something dreadful to America. I listened to many other people express anger similar to his initial reaction, which he was subsequently to regret. At the first moment in Turkey, everyone spoke of how despicable and horrifying the attack was. However, they followed up their denunciation of the slaughter of innocent people with a but, introducing restrained or resentful criticism of America's political and economic role in the world. Debating America's world role in the shadow of a terrorism that is based on hatred of the west, endeavours to create artificial enmity between Islam and Christianity and brutally kills innocent people is extremely difficult and, perhaps, morally questionable. But since in the heat of righteous anger at this vicious act of terror, and in nationalistic rage, it is so easy to speak words that can lead to the slaughter of other innocent people, one wishes to say something. If the American military bombs innocent people in Afghanistan, or any other part of the world, to satisfy its own people, it will exacerbate the artificial tension that some quarters are endeavouring to generate between east and west and bolster the terrorism that it sets out to punish. We must make it our duty to understand why the poor nations of the world, the millions of people belonging to countries that have been pushed to one side and deprived of the right even to decide their own histories, feel such anger at America. We are not obliged, however, always to countenance this anger. In many third world and Islamic countries, anti-American feeling is not so much righteous anger, as a tool employed to conceal the lack of democracy and reinforce the power of local dictators. The forging of close relations with America by insular societies like Saudi Arabia that behave as if they had sworn to prove that Islam and democracy are mutually irreconcilable is no encouragement to those working to establish secular democracies in Islamic countries. Similarly, a superficial hostility to America, as in Turkey's case, allows administrators to squander the money they receive from international financial institutions and to conceal the gap between rich and poor, which has reached intolerable dimensions. Those who give unconditional backing to military attacks to demonstrate America's military strength and teach terrorists a lesson, who cheerfully discuss on television where American planes will bomb as if playing a video game, should know that impulsive decisions to engage in war will aggravate the hostility towards the west felt by millions in Islamic countries and poverty-stricken regions. This gives rise to feelings of humiliation and inferiority. It is neither Islam nor even poverty itself directly that succours terrorists whose ferocity and creativity are unprecedented in human history, but the crushing humiliation that has infected third world countries like cancer. Never has the gulf between rich and poor been so wide. It might be argued that the wealth of rich countries is their own achievement and does not concern the poor of the world, but never have the lives of the rich been so forcibly brought to the attention of the poor through television and Hollywood films. Today, an ordinary citizen of a poor Muslim country without democracy, or a civil servant in a third world country or a former socialist republic struggling to make ends meet, is aware of how insubstantial an amount of the world's wealth falls to his share and that his living conditions, so much harsher than those of a westerner, condemn him to a much shorter life. At the same time, a corner of his mind senses that his poverty is the fault of his own folly, or that of his father and grandfather. The western world is scarcely aware of this overwhelming humiliation experienced by most of the world's population, which they have to overcome without losing their common sense and without being seduced by terrorists, extreme nationalists or fundamentalists. Neither the magical realistic novels that endow poverty and foolishness with charm, nor the exoticism of popular travel literature manage to fathom this cursed private sphere. The great majority of the world population - which is passed over with a light depreciating smile and feelings of pity and compassion - is afflicted by
Krugman on complexity and chaos
Well, I find Jim Devine's latest salvo on Krugman of some interest. I think the following is going on: 1) He has read John Horgan's _The End of Science_. Horgan is the one who coined this line about "cybernetics to catastrophe to chaos to complexity" (all garbage according to him). In his complexity-oriented _The Self-Organizing Economy_ Krugman came up with this "where is catastrophe theory now"? Well, we can see it on this list in the discussion on green permits and taxes. David Laibman gave a paper on it at the Easterns in New York. But, when people publish in the AER they have to sneak into footnotes if it appears at all. It has been "ruled out" by the powers-that-be for fairly silly reasons. 2) I would agree that not much has come out of the sandpile models for economics anyway. There was one rather major and interesting paper by Bak, Chen, Scheinkman, and Woodford that appeared several years ago in _Ricerche Economiche_ on it. A shortened version was presented at the AEA complexity session that Krugman chaired and where he presented some stuff of Haag and Weidlich's as his own, rather notoriously. Brian Arthur was also presenting in that session. H. 3) I think that there must have been some kind of falling out while Krugman was at Stanford. Arrow and Arthur were responsible for his having been hired and they run the econ side of Santa Fe where Krugman hung out for awhile. Now he is back at MIT. I hear through the grapevine that various people tried to restrain Krugman from his attack on Arthur in _Slate_, but... 4) I suspect that writing an intro textbook (still trying to outdo Paul Samuelson; will he beat out Mankiw?) pushes him towards a more conventional view. You don't make a lot of money if your "great new book" deviates from the standard approach by more than 15%. See what happened with Stiglitz's effort. Barkley Rosser - Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Krugman on complexity chaos
I don't think pen-l should be a fan club for my old college roomie, Paul K, but you folks may be interested in the following SLATE essay, where in the process of trashing USVP Al Gore, he pooh-poohs both complexity and chaos theory. Since he's a weathervane of the relatively enlightened orthodoxy of the economics profession, maybe this sugggests a theoretical retrenchment, a return to the equilibrium religion: Algorithms: Probing the vice president's thought processes. (from SLATE magazine) By Paul Krugman (posted Thursday, Feb. 12) A few weeks ago, for some reason that now escapes me, I began to wonder what kind of president Al Gore would make. Never mind his character or his private life--I leave such matters to the experts. What I'm interested in is his mind. After all, Gore--like Clinton--is an unusually bookish politician, one who reads serious tomes on serious subjects and even tries to be a bit of an authority himself. Clinton's pre-presidential intellectual tastes played a big role in determining the shape of his administration's first couple of years. The same might be true of his loyal lieutenant. And so I picked up a copy of Gore's 1992 environmental manifesto, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. I can't pass judgment on the scientific merits of the book's environmental analysis, but Gore touches on areas where I do know something and, in so doing, he gives me some important clues to his intellectual style. Perhaps the best way to think about Gore the thinker is to contrast him with Clinton. Both men are deeply wonkish, clearly enjoying nothing (well, almost nothing) more than long discussions on how to save the world with a simple 22-point program. But the objects of their affections differ. Clinton is most attracted by matters social and economic, Gore by matters environmental and scientific. Clinton is the kind of guy who attends panel discussions at Renaissance Weekend and pores over the New York Review of Books. Gore pays personal calls on physicists and curls up with Scientific American. And while Clinton, before Bob Rubin took him in hand, was a rather credulous consumer of pop economics, Gore's corresponding vice seems to be pop science. Which is not to say that Earth in the Balance is entirely free from pop econ. The book contains a chapter, lamentably titled "Eco-nomics," that perpetuates the oddly popular myth that conventional economic theory is constitutionally incapable of dealing with environmental problems. "Many popular textbooks on economic theory fail even to address subjects as basic to our economic choices as pollution or the depletion of natural resources," Gore declares. Actually, I have all the leading introductory texts on my shelf (I'm writing one myself and am trying to steal my competitors' ideas), and every one has an extensive section on environmental issues. One looks in vain in Gore's book for even a mention of the fundamentals of standard environmental economics: pollution as the prime example of an "externality" (a social cost that the market does not properly value), and the standard recommendation that externalities be corrected with pollution taxes or tradable emission permits. (I wrote about the economics of environmentalism in Slate last year, in "Earth in the Balance Sheet.") Since these concepts have actually made their way from theory into practice, one wonders how he missed them. The introduction of tradable permits was an important feature of the 1990 revision of the Clean Air Act, for example, and both fees and permits have been crucial in efforts to protect the ozone layer. But for me, at least, the really revealing part of Earth in the Balance was the book's conclusion, where Gore talks about sandpiles and how they changed his life. Sandpiles, for those unfamiliar with pop science trends, are the motivating example for a concept known as "self-organized criticality," which, in turn, is one of the Big Ideas of so-called "complexity theory." Imagine allowing sand to slowly trickle onto an existing pile. Bit by bit the pile's sides will become steeper. When they become too steep--when they exceed some "critical" slope--there will be an avalanche. In simplified computer models of sandpiles (though not, apparently, in all real sandpiles), a curious pattern emerges. Because the slope of the sandpile is always close to its critical value, dropping a single grain of sand on the pile can produce anything from no effect to a massive sand slide. Specifically, the distribution of avalanche sizes follows a particular mathematical form known as a "power law" that is found in many natural and some social phenomena, such as the sizes of earthquakes and the sizes of cities. (For an example of the power law applied to city size, click here.) What Per Bak, the Danish physicist who came up with the sandpile metaphor, has argued is that because sandp
Re: complexity
I think that I posted this once before, but what the hell! Pool, Robert. 1989. "Strange Bedfellows." Science, vol. 245 (18 August): pp. 700-5. 701: Physicists at the Santa Fe institute were amazed at how mathematically sophisticated economists were. 701: The economists were shocked at the physicists' lack of rigor. Because physicists have so much data, they can follow their noses or use computer simulations. Because economists' data is so sparse, they must carefully lay out their assumptions. 701: The economists thought that science meant mathematical proofs of theories and econometric tests. The physicists spend most of their time trying to explain phenomenon, such as agricultural economists and economic historians. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
complexity
Someone mentioned Brian Arthur and his part in Mitchell Waldrop's book "Complexity". That book had a fairly interesting and novel (novel to me anyway) critique of the mathematical "culture" of Economics. The critique originates from a group of physicists called to the Santa Fe institute to do their interdisciplinary thang in a seminar with a group of economists. Both groups introduced themselves via a tour of the mathematical models used in each profession. Waldrop recounts that the physicists were somewhat taken aback by the economists. They seemed quite technically proficient but the economist's use of models seemed somewhat alien to them. (If anyone else read this critique and understands it better please contribute what you remember of it.) What I remember about the critique is that physicists seem to spend alot of effort trying to come up with models that fit phenomenon as they observed them but that the economists spent much more effort deriving their models from first principles. Another implication of this was that the physicists were much more willing junk the models in the face of new evidence. If that is true, I wonder if a case could be made that this is approach is much more prone to ideological "contamination" than the sort of modeling physicists do (the difference in subject matter is relevant, of course). Any thoughts??? -Paul Meyer
Complexity
Someone mentioned Brian Arthur and his part in Mitchell Waldrop's book "Complexity". That book had a fairly interesting and novel (novel to me anyway) critique of the mathematical "culture" of Economics. The critique originates from a group of physicists called to the Santa Fe institute to do their interdisciplinary thang in a seminar with a group of economists. Both groups introduced themselves via a tour of the mathematical models used in each profession. Waldrop recounts that the physicists were somewhat taken aback by the economists. They seemed quite technically proficient but the economist's use of models seemed somewhat alien to them. (If anyone else read this critique and understands it better please contribute what you remember of it.) What I remember about the critique is that physicists seem to spend alot of effort trying to come up with models that fit phenomenon as they observed them but that the economists spent much more effort deriving their models from first principles. Another implication of this was that the physicists were much more willing junk the models in the face of new evidence. If that is true, I wonder if a case could be made that this is approach is much more prone to ideological "contamination" than the sort of modeling physicists do (the difference in subject matter is relevant, of course). Any thoughts??? -Paul Meyer
Chaos/Complexity
It is interesting to note that the chaos/complexity "paradigm" is often portrayed as "cutting edge; the notions of hidden order in complexity and complexity out of assumed order, fuzzy logic, strange- attractors, spirals rather than linear chains of causality etc. The earilies known date of the Mayan calender, on which all later Mayan dates were based was 3372 B.C. according to "Native American History" by Judith Nies. The Mayas of Mexico and Guatemala conceived of time in terms of cycles within cycles with the smallest measurement being a cycle or religious year of 260 days inside a secular year of 365 days. The Mayan civilization in Yucatan, Mexico located time within large cycles like intermeshing wheels (3), with a system based on precise celestial measurements, developed a celendar more accurate than the calendar later developed by Pope Gregory. Some Mayan documents placed the end of the world at around 34,000. Of course elements of some of the essential concepts of "chaos/complexity" theory (paradigm?) can also be found in classical Taoist writings and Siberian Shaman stories as well. On another note, we have our very own "Tuskeegee" experiment in Washinton State. For over ten years, the multiplying physiological effects of radioactive waste leakage into soil and groundwater around Hanford were measured by using Indians living in surrounding areas as experimental subjects. Without notifying anyone of the monitoring or any Indians what was being examined, Indians were given "free medical exams" to take blood and tissue samples to test for escalating levels of radioactivity from radioactive waste. Further, those suffering diseases generally associated with radiation were given special "free exams." No theraputic treatment was given to any of the subjects. The Native American Student Council at Clark College, in reference to these experiments and to the celebration of "Columbus Day" have elected to propose a combined "Eichmann/Mengele Day" to the Board of Trustees and invite all students to "celebrate." They will be gathering quotes from Eichmann and Mengele contrasting them with quotes from the Diary of Columbus and making posters with pictures from the Nazi Holocaust contrasting them with images from the Indian Holocaust. The NASC has also proposed to gather from propaganda posters and other media, the most ugly and offensive (self-indicting) images and caricatures of people of various racial/ethnic/religious groups to create counter mascots/symbols/rituals/names for current high- school and professional sports teams. Suggestions included: "New York Niggers" (with an ugly caricature of an African American carrying a watermellon and doing the "watermellon shuffle"); "Kansas City Kikes" (with a football helmet symbol of a Dollar Sign superimposed on a Star of David); "San Franscisco Spics" (With the symbol of an overweight Puerto Rican sitting under a mango tree taking a siesta) and many other patently offensive (clealry self-indicting) caricatures--as offensive as "Washington Redskins", "The Tomahawk Chop", "The Bucktoothed Indian" of Cleveland etc. The NASC has also proposed to set up a Pow Wow and American Indian "Mall" (Foods, Arts/Crafts etc) at one of the Cemetaries of the Oregon Trail Pioneers since so much of Indian burial lands are covered by supermalls they figure a dramatic illustration to show how it feels. As the Faculty Advisor, I urged them not to do some dramatic stuff as it is "axiomatic" and "automatic", that the dialaectic will unfold, and capitalism will collapse under the weight of its own mounting internal contradictions, and therefore we don't have to actually "DO" anything ;-), but they had some kind of idea that more than just talking and writing to the converted is required for substantive change. Oh Well. Jim Craven *---* * "Who controls the past, * * James Craven controls the future. * * Dept of Economics Who controls the present,* * Clark College controls the past." (George Orwell)* * 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd.* * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 (360) 992-2283 FAX: (360)992-2863* * [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:11404] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, and
Carla Feldpausch just completed her PHD thesis,"The Political Economy of Chaos: Multiple Equilibria and Fractal Basin Boundaries in a Nonlinear Envir onmental Economy" with Walter Park (American University), Barkley Rosser (James Madison Univerity), and Robert Blecker (American University) this past Spring, 1997. You can contact her at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11405] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory,
What time is Costanza's brown bag at EPI? I'd like to come.
[PEN-L:11410] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Robin Hahnel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11405] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, What time is Costanza's brown bag at EPI? I'd like to come. 12:30 till about 2 pm, and please do come. Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11411] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory,
Robin Hahnel wrote: Carla Feldpausch just completed her PHD thesis,"The Political Economy of Chaos: Multiple Equilibria and Fractal Basin Boundaries in a Nonlinear Envir onmental Economy" with Walter Park (American University), Barkley Rosser (James Madison Univerity), and Robert Blecker (American University) this past Spring, 1997. You can contact her at [EMAIL PROTECTED] To those who are suspicious of math for feminist reasons: is this masculinist of Carla? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:11400] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, an
From: Anders Schneiderman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11397] Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, and Economics I'm starting a new research project, and I need to get up to speed on the latest thinking about sustainable development. Anybody have any reading suggestions (particularly things I can find on-line, since the libraries in Syracuse are fairly limited)? I'm trying to use ecology / sustainable development as a metaphor. Also, has anyone in economics done research using complexity theory that's reasonably accessible? I know Kenneth Arrow was doing some work, but I was curious who else has done interesting research. Talk to Dean Baker, Frank Muller, or Andy Hoerner at EPI ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Obviously check out Herman Daly and Robert Costanza (latter is at U of Md.). If you're in DC tomorrow (the 24th, Thursday), come to a brown-bag at EPI given by Costanza. There was a president's Commission on Sustainable Development (Dean was on it) which did reports or statements of some kind. Cheers, Max === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11399] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, and Economics
On Wed, July 23, 1997 at 06:21:02 (-0700) Anders Schneiderman writes: I'm starting a new research project, and I need to get up to speed on the latest thinking about sustainable development. Anybody have any reading suggestions (particularly things I can find on-line, since the libraries in Syracuse are fairly limited)? I'm trying to use ecology / sustainable development as a metaphor. Also, has anyone in economics done research using complexity theory that's reasonably accessible? I know Kenneth Arrow was doing some work, but I was curious who else has done interesting research. About online sustainable development... The folks at CSF had a Herman Daly seminar the remains of which can be found online, along with other material, at http://csf.colorado.edu/isee/daly/. You might try searching USENET by going to http://www.dejanews.com/ and typing in a search of "sustainable development" (without quotes; disclaimer---I am an owner of and worker for Dejanews). I just did a search and there were several articles you might find relevant (one article pointed readers to the site http://www.nautilus.org/). About complexity theory, it depends on what you mean by accessible. Richard H. Day has a book called _Complex Economic Dynamics: An Introduction to Dynamical Systems_. Volume 1 (MIT Press, 1994), which is not too bad. Also, Richard M. Goodwin. _Chaotic Economic Dynamics_ (Oxford University Press, 1990) might be useful. Ching-Yao Hsieh and Meng-Hua Ye's _Economics, Philosophy, and Physics_ (M. E. Sharpe, 1991) touches on chaos theory and is quite good. For an example of how *not* to think about chaos theory and economics, see Paul Krugman's insipid _The Self-Organizing Economy_ (Basil Blackwell, 1996), research for a review of which I am presently conducting. For online chaos stuff, you might try the Santa Fe Institute at http://alife.santafe.edu/. You might also try Yale's Center for Computational Ecology at http://peaplant.biology.yale.edu:8001/, or the Complexity and Nonlinear Social Systems Home Page at http://www.actlab.utexas.edu/~paradox/complexity.html. Barkley Rosser has written a paper, "Complex Dynamics in New Keynesian and Post Keynesian Economics", available at gopher://csf.Colorado.EDU/00/econ/authors/Rosser.Barkley/complex%20dynamics. Finally, try the Chaos Network at http://www.prairienet.org/business/ptech/txt/. Bill
[PEN-L:11398] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, and Economics
Dear Penlrs, I'm starting a new research project, and I need to get up to speed on the latest thinking about sustainable development. Anybody have any reading suggestions (particularly things I can find on-line, since the libraries in Syracuse are fairly limited)? I'm trying to use ecology / sustainable development as a metaphor. Also, has anyone in economics done research using complexity theory that's reasonably accessible? I know Kenneth Arrow was doing some work, but I was curious who else has done interesting research. Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications Check out HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT, 1996 by the United Nations. It contains sections and articles about sustainable economic development. Fikret. +Fikret Ceyhun voice: (701)777-3348 work + +Dept. of Economics (701)772-5135 home + +Univ. of North Dakota fax:(701)777-5099 + +University Station, Box 8369e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] + +Grand Forks, ND 58202/USA +
[PEN-L:11397] Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, and Economics
Dear Penlrs, I'm starting a new research project, and I need to get up to speed on the latest thinking about sustainable development. Anybody have any reading suggestions (particularly things I can find on-line, since the libraries in Syracuse are fairly limited)? I'm trying to use ecology / sustainable development as a metaphor. Also, has anyone in economics done research using complexity theory that's reasonably accessible? I know Kenneth Arrow was doing some work, but I was curious who else has done interesting research. Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications
[PEN-L:3706] Economists, complexity, and power
The discussion over economists and rationality reminded me of something I've been wanting to ask the economists on the list. Is the study of complexity/chaos making any headway in mainstream economics these days? I've read a bit of the work on complexity going on in the study of biology, and it seemed to me that it was one of the few mathematical models I'd seen that could talk about politics--or more generally about how economic actors try to change the rules of the game--in a fairly sophisticated way. I was wondering because what little (nonradical) economicsI've learned has always struck me as having little to do with the real world of business--even as seen through the eyes of mainstream business journalists. Have I been missing out? Anders Schneiderman, PhD. Center for Community Economic Research University of California at Berkeley
[PEN-L:3709] Re: Economists, complexity, and power
The discussion over economists and rationality reminded me of something I've been wanting to ask the economists on the list. Is the study of complexity/chaos making any headway in mainstream economics these days? Read _The Economy as a Complex System_, a proceedings volume from the Santa Fe Institute. You'll find it your local Borders' or other well stocked book store. Cheers, Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] WisCon, The Feminist SF Convention -- http://www.cs.wisc.edu/wiscon/
