tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post1908916425879164238..comments2023-06-18T01:25:08.748-07:00Comments on Information Transfer Economics: The SMD theorem and ... oh, no ... not another physics analogyJason Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-73541981541095730262015-10-17T18:46:56.006-07:002015-10-17T18:46:56.006-07:00There is a link on the sidebar but it says "g...There is a link on the sidebar but it says "general information transfer model from physics". I should probably change the name.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-4149671377369266562015-10-17T18:46:53.195-07:002015-10-17T18:46:53.195-07:00Nevermind!!!.... I just now noticed that it's ...Nevermind!!!.... I just now noticed that it's already there. Duh.Tom Brownhttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-21573186234892748642015-10-17T18:24:21.888-07:002015-10-17T18:24:21.888-07:00Replace "the chance" with "they ch...Replace "the chance" with "they change" in the above.Tom Brownhttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-67705388916171282662015-10-17T18:22:41.556-07:002015-10-17T18:22:41.556-07:00Jason, a suggestion/request: it would be nice to h...Jason, a suggestion/request: it would be nice to have a permanent link to Fielitz and Borchardt's papers (the four revisions: the chance up the examples just enough to make them all of interest) in your right hand column. You'd think I might have their names memorized by now but their names are just alien enough sounding to my ear that I have a hard time with them. My usual procedure to find their paper(s) is to come to your blog, type "abstract" in your search box... scan down to the 3rd or 4th search result, open that, and then find your link in there. Maybe it's just me, but I must have done that at least 20 times or so now in total. Also, if I wait long enough before doing it again I'll forget exactly which search result to click on.Tom Brownhttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-85279852587266561552015-10-17T17:32:22.592-07:002015-10-17T17:32:22.592-07:00The relevant quotes from my paper:
A serious impa...The relevant quotes from my paper:<br /><br />A serious impasse to this approach is the lack of well-defined or even definable constraints enabling the use of Lagrange multipliers, partition functions and the machinery of statistical mechanics for systems away from equilibrium or for non-physical systems. The latter – in particular economic systems – lack e.g. fundamental conservation laws like the conservation of energy to form the basis of these constraints. In order to address this impasse, Fielitz and Borchardt (2014) introduced the concept of natural information equilibrium. They produced a framework based on information equilibrium and showed it was applicable to several physical systems. The present paper seeks to apply that framework to<br />economic systems.<br /><br />...<br /><br />The specific thrust of Fielitz and Borchardt (2014) is that it looks at how<br />far you can go with the maximum entropy or information theoretic arguments without having to specify constraints. This refers to partition function constraints optimized with the use of Lagrange multipliers. In thermodynamics language it’s a little more intuitive: basically the information transfer model allows you to look at thermodynamic systems without having defined a temperature (Lagrange multiplier) and without having the related constraint (that the system observables have some fixed value, i.e. equilibrium).Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-76364471818239781312015-10-17T17:24:29.495-07:002015-10-17T17:24:29.495-07:00Regarding equilibrium, I'm not entirely sure w...Regarding equilibrium, I'm not entirely sure what definition Hidalgo uses. And it's hard to identify out-of-equilibrium without knowing equilibrium. <br /><br />The information equilibrium picture actually describes systems that would be considered out of equilibrium in physics terms -- for one, entropy is growing. I talk more about this in the introduction of my paper:<br /><br /><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02435" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02435</a><br /><br />But the key point is that the information transfer model was designed to handle non-equilibrium and non-physical systems without well defined temperatures.<br /><br />Regarding the structure of the network, that may well matter -- you mentioned the paper on self-organized criticality in economics, and I said in that case networks may be relevant to how the system fails. See also here about large connected components:<br /><br /><a href="http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2015/03/non-ideal-information-transfer-tail.html" rel="nofollow">http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2015/03/non-ideal-information-transfer-tail.html</a><br /><br />From an economics standpoint, however, Hidalgo's network approach has some issues:<br /><br /><a href="https://growthecon.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/why-information-industrial-classification-diversity-grows/" rel="nofollow">https://growthecon.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/why-information-industrial-classification-diversity-grows/</a> Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-54586601425487255772015-10-17T14:26:37.216-07:002015-10-17T14:26:37.216-07:00I think Cesar Hidalgo in his Why Information Grows...I think Cesar Hidalgo in his Why Information Grows is saying macro constructs like GDP are not what we should be looking at - we need to be looking at the structure of the network.<br /><br />Also, it seems like equilibrium is problematic in economics - we are in an evolving network where the structure of the network is changing all the time. Doesn't Hidalgo talk about Prigogine and out-of-equilibrium is the key ?pclenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-65650066204928126382015-10-17T12:36:28.342-07:002015-10-17T12:36:28.342-07:00"The pion decay constant Fπ only makes sense ..."The pion decay constant Fπ only makes sense for a pion." ... Exactly!!! That's what I've been telling these people for years now, and they just won't listen! ;^)Tom Brownhttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.com