tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post1572590452688711839..comments2023-06-18T01:25:08.748-07:00Comments on Information Transfer Economics: As if: positive economics, evolution and effective theoriesJason Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-30036417308543150172016-02-17T17:28:43.318-08:002016-02-17T17:28:43.318-08:00... Sean says, the stronger is OK "in a hand-...... Sean says, the stronger is OK "in a hand-waving way" because there's a deficiency of technical proofs. He recommended a couple of his books for more info. :DTom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-56439406479275349342016-02-17T17:23:49.818-08:002016-02-17T17:23:49.818-08:00And while we're exchanging pleasantries, just ...And while we're exchanging pleasantries, just one more thing.<br /><br />"Animal spirits" isn't an explanation, just a name.”<br /><br />You say I don’t understand the GT. I wonder what you understand about the GT? “Animal spirits” is a central theme in the GT. The problem for mathematicians is that they don’t know how to model such notions as animal spirits – so it’s dismissed and discarded as just a “name”. Best mathematicians keep away from economics and stick with the world of abstraction.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-38224940439624273472016-02-17T17:22:56.931-08:002016-02-17T17:22:56.931-08:00Jason, I overlooked this statement from you:
&quo...Jason, I overlooked this statement from you:<br /><br />"complex structures (e.g. life) live off of entropy gradients (consuming free energy, which is a technical term)"<br /><br />Which makes me think the stronger <a href="http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2016/02/as-if-positive-economics-evolution-and.html?showComment=1455756361213#c2038274248068370787" rel="nofollow">"necessary" statement</a> is acceptable (probably with certain qualifiers, like "in a closed system").Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-56910499471111138482016-02-17T17:02:31.515-08:002016-02-17T17:02:31.515-08:00Why should I help? Laying on your back in the hot ...Why should I help? Laying on your back in the hot sun is character building.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-83423661737883109602016-02-17T16:50:36.365-08:002016-02-17T16:50:36.365-08:00You're in a desert, walking along in the sand ...You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise. <br /><br />It's crawling toward you...<br /><br />You reach down and flip the tortoise over on its back, Henry.<br /><br />The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over. <br /><br />But it can't. Not with out your help. But you're not helping.<br /><br />Why is that, Henry?Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-63654544760701663012016-02-17T16:49:08.279-08:002016-02-17T16:49:08.279-08:00"Is this a Voigt-Kampff test?"
Now you&..."Is this a Voigt-Kampff test?"<br /><br />Now you're talkin' my kind language.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-20382742480683707872016-02-17T16:46:01.213-08:002016-02-17T16:46:01.213-08:00Jason, I wrote above:
"It's possible ent...Jason, I wrote above:<br /><br />"It's possible entropy and complexity can both increase at the same time."<br /><br />However, there's an implication in what Carrol said that makes me wonder if I couldn't have made a stronger statement. Something like:<br /><br />"It's necessary (but not sufficient) that entropy increase for complexity to increase."<br /><br />And I mean "necessary" in a statistical sense (much as the 2nd law states that statistically entropy never decreases).<br /><br />Or is that an incorrect implication to draw, and we're really left with my original weaker "possible" statement?Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-9904515623675663022016-02-17T16:44:57.667-08:002016-02-17T16:44:57.667-08:00"As I've said many times, we don't kn..."As I've said many times, we don't know if it is random or deterministic. We may yet discover its random nature or deterministic nature."<br /><br />So what has this do with our discussion.<br /><br />You made a categoric statement, many posts ago, designed to refute a point I was making, many posts ago.<br /><br />It is clear that you're not clear what you are talking about.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-8478678943507073392016-02-17T16:43:06.610-08:002016-02-17T16:43:06.610-08:00Is this a Voigt-Kampff test?Is this a Voigt-Kampff test?Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-88424218573603558622016-02-17T16:37:42.364-08:002016-02-17T16:37:42.364-08:00Ooops! My apologies. A seemingly random piece of t...Ooops! My apologies. A seemingly random piece of text appeared at the end of my post. Perhaps we can test it with your Marsaglia-Zaman algorithm?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-19654860298427255642016-02-17T16:35:31.006-08:002016-02-17T16:35:31.006-08:00"A random phenomenon both appears random and ..."A random phenomenon both appears random and is random; so there exist things that are both.<br /><br />"A random phenomenon both appears random and is random; so there exist things that are both."<br /><br />More goobledigook.<br /><br /><br />Remember I mentioned “dither” to you the other day. This is your verbal version of dither designed to smudge your feeble attempt to explain away your conflicting statements.<br /><br />Re: Chap 3 of the GT - there would times I would be inclined to agree with you - I'm sure it's defeated many a poor economist/mathematician.<br /><br /><br /><br />"As I've said many times, we don't know if it is random or deterministic. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-26859998456390550702016-02-17T16:26:31.313-08:002016-02-17T16:26:31.313-08:00A random phenomenon both appears random and is ran...A random phenomenon both appears random and is random; so there exist things that are both.<br /><br />As I've said many times, we don't know if it is random or deterministic. We may yet discover its random nature or deterministic nature.<br /><br />RE: gobbledygook<br /><br />Good luck with Keynes GT Chapter 3.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-3543080106355654532016-02-17T16:14:34.046-08:002016-02-17T16:14:34.046-08:00"Randomness as a proxy for complexity is base..."Randomness as a proxy for complexity is based on the fact that an apparently random sequence "<br /><br />So are we talking about random phenomena or phenomena that appear random? Which is it? Can't be both.<br /><br /><br />"But this has nothing to do with C(X) or S(X), but rather with X itself."<br /><br />Now you're talking gobbledigook.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-84183491717774892372016-02-17T16:07:37.912-08:002016-02-17T16:07:37.912-08:00Thanks Tom.
It's a pity Jason doesn't tak...Thanks Tom.<br /><br />It's a pity Jason doesn't take a leaf out of your book and get off his high horse and do the same. He is a very clever and well educated fellow but grandstanding will put more people off than gather them in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-61311643997628754642016-02-17T16:04:12.902-08:002016-02-17T16:04:12.902-08:00The fact that entropy and complexity are independe...The fact that entropy and complexity are independent of each other is based on the fact that entropy (S) and complexity (C) measure different things. Let's say we're given a system X. Then S(X) and C(X) are independent functions.<br /><br />Randomness as a proxy for complexity is based on the fact that an apparently random sequence could be deterministic but complex. So given that system X, X could be:<br /><br />X = X(a, b, c, d, ...)<br />X = random variable X<br /><br />And we can't tell the difference if we don't know X(a, b, c , d, ...). But this has nothing to do with C(X) or S(X), but rather with X itself.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-23659818190903290222016-02-17T15:47:04.310-08:002016-02-17T15:47:04.310-08:00" It's a Marsaglia-Zaman algorithm."..." It's a Marsaglia-Zaman algorithm."<br /><br />Of course it is. I knew it as soon as I slapped my eyes on it.<br /><br /><br />And you haven't dealt with these two conflicting statements (well, to a dimwit like me, they seem conflicting) :<br /><br /><br />"What Carroll says: Entropy and complexity are independent of each other. This has nothing to do with randomness."<br /><br />"Randomness is a proxy for complexity.."<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-15592574604786914882016-02-17T15:17:47.558-08:002016-02-17T15:17:47.558-08:00RE: randomness ...
Here is a sequence:
1.23, 0.4...RE: randomness ...<br /><br />Here is a sequence:<br /><br />1.23, 0.42, 1.07, 1.38, 1.22, 1.69, 1.13, 1.76, 1.76, 0.45<br /><br />I generated it with a random number generator. Random, right? <br /><br />Actually, no, it's complex, but completely deterministic given the seed. It's a Marsaglia-Zaman algorithm.<br /><br /><br />"Mathematicians don't know how to model complex cyclical behaviour - even though their mathematical machines have the look of rigor, they are ineffectual."<br /><br />This really clears up a lot for me.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-71121681903688763322016-02-17T14:52:42.634-08:002016-02-17T14:52:42.634-08:00" It is regression to the mean, not cyclical ...<br />" It is regression to the mean, not cyclical behavior."<br /><br />It's the mathematicians take on it. Mathematicians don't know how to model complex cyclical behaviour - even though their mathematical machines have the look of rigor, they are ineffectual. You can invent and invoke all the high sounding terms and concepts you like, the plain simple fact is that mathematicians don't understand cyclical behaviour.<br /><br /><br /><br />"What Carroll says: Entropy and complexity are independent of each other. This has nothing to do with randomness."<br /><br />So how do you square that with your statement:<br /><br />"Randomness is a proxy for complexity.."<br /><br />Who understands what here?<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-41206904530370097402016-02-17T14:41:31.581-08:002016-02-17T14:41:31.581-08:00Henry, in response to another commenter on Jason&#...Henry, in response to another commenter on Jason's latest post, <a href="http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2016/02/recoveries-do-grow-old-they-just-have.html?showComment=1455739109802#c5137686152132876532" rel="nofollow">I tried my hand at considerably shortening a brief summary</a> in comparison to my mock Q&A tutorial "dialog" to you above. Jason then responded with some links to the commenter which are no doubt more valuable.<br /><br />And of course I'm leaving a lot of things unexplained there (and above):<br /><br />Why does an IE relation have that form?<br /><br />Are there restrictions on k? (e.g. can we rule out k <= 0?)<br /><br />Is k ever time varying, and if so, can we sometimes determine a functional form for it? Or can we ever calculate it's numerical value w/o fitting it to data?<br /><br />What is this partial equilibrium (PE) solution I refer to, and when does it apply, and does it have a known functional form also?<br /><br />How do you know which is the information source and which is the information destination, and does it matter? (spoiler alert, in the case of IE it doesn't matter... but for non-ideal information transfer (IT) it does).<br /><br />etc.<br /><br />Of course there's a lot more to all of this than the little bit I tried to shine a light on in that comment, but I'm always wondering what is the best way to communicate a flavor for what's going on here in a reasonably short comment. Usually not a comment here, because Jason already has tons of material, and I'm probably not adding much by jumping in with an answer of my own... but on another blog say, should someone ask. Or should I try to explain it in person to someone. I can always give them a link, but sometimes it's nice to be able to tell a brief little story right there: hopefully presenting a good balance between clarity and brevity.<br /><br />So anyway, perhaps what I wrote there will be helpful. I trimmed down the length considerably from the mock Q&A above (it's maybe 1/4 as long or less), but I think I cover the same ground w/o any extra fat.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-79893847219301989182016-02-17T14:25:15.571-08:002016-02-17T14:25:15.571-08:00"Because they do not precisely fit a regular ..."Because they do not precisely fit a regular sine wave function does not mean they are random. ... I think I do [understand cyclical behaviour]. I think it is mathematicians looking for simple explanations and models who don't understand cyclical behaviour."<br /><br />See, you don't understand what you are talking about. The correct logical inference is that because they don't fit a general periodic function, they aren't cyclic. You are calling them cyclic when you actually mean its a stochastic process without a unit root (when the trend is subtracted). Such processes will move away from the trend and return to it, but not with a precise period. It is regression to the mean, not cyclical behavior.<br /><br />You also don't understand what either Carroll or I said about complexity.<br /><br />What I said: An algorithm that produces a complex output can't necessarily be distinguished from an algorithm that produces a random output. This statement has nothing to do with entropy.<br /><br />What Carroll says: Entropy and complexity are independent of each other. This has nothing to do with randomness.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-81413899947633009932016-02-17T13:29:47.872-08:002016-02-17T13:29:47.872-08:00"Those are not cycles, they are random fluctu..."Those are not cycles, they are random fluctuations around the trend."<br /><br />Because they do not precisely fit a regular sine wave function does not mean they are random.<br /><br /><br />"You try to talk about the philosophy of science, but don't know the terms."<br /><br />Correct.<br /><br /><br />"You don't know the difference between what complexity measures and what entropy measures."<br /><br />Correct, however going by what Carroll says in his video, complexity has nothing to do with entropy. So where does that leave you?<br /><br /><br />" You don't understand the difference between cycles and regression to the mean."<br /><br />I think I do. I think it is mathematicians looking for simple explanations and models who don't understand cyclical behaviour.<br /><br /> <br />"You make claims about what the information equilibrium model says,...."<br /><br />Where have I made such claims?<br /><br /><br />" I am pretty sure that even though you claim to have read Keynes' General Theory, you probably don't understand it."<br /><br />I would mostly agree with that - it is a work in progress.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-75027724779524855822016-02-17T13:07:10.152-08:002016-02-17T13:07:10.152-08:00"with the trend removed and showing only the ..."with the trend removed and showing only the cycles around the trend. Interesting because you assert that cycles don't exist."<br /><br />Those are not cycles, they are random fluctuations around the trend.<br /><br />I think you are fooling yourself into thinking you understand much more than you do. You try to talk about the philosophy of science, but don't know the terms. You don't know the difference between what complexity measures and what entropy measures. You don't understand the difference between cycles and regression to the mean. You make claims about what the information equilibrium model says, but by your own admission don't understand it.<br /><br />You don't seem to understand what science is or how it works. I am pretty sure that even though you claim to have read Keynes' <i>General Theory</i>, you probably don't understand it.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-41567172256112339672016-02-17T11:28:10.026-08:002016-02-17T11:28:10.026-08:00" (assuming the model is correct)."
You..." (assuming the model is correct)."<br /><br />You don't seem to have a great deal of confidence in your model. I thought it was the framework to replace all frameworks?<br /><br /><br />"It is not a yes or no thing and it is rather ridiculous to expect a yes or no answer."<br /><br />Oh yes it is, given the claims you make.<br /><br />And the interesting thing is that you use what you call your "speculative indicator of recessions" which is the interest data with the trend removed and showing only the cycles around the trend. Interesting because you assert that cycles don't exist.<br /><br /><br />"The center picture has more dynamics"<br /><br />That's right, pick that one that fits your argument. What did Tom call that kind of fooling yourself? That's right, confirmation bias.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-90997191156836917032016-02-17T11:15:06.261-08:002016-02-17T11:15:06.261-08:00As I said above and at the link, there is a possib...As I said above and at the link, there is a possibility of a (small) recession because short interest rates are above the trend path (assuming the model is correct).<br /><br />As an analogy, there hasn't been any snow on the mountains and now there is a little bit, and so there is a chance of an avalanche.<br /><br />It is not a yes or no thing and it is rather ridiculous to expect a yes or no answer.<br /><br />RE: Carroll, the algorithmic complexity is low for either end (the system is described by 2 separate uniform states or 1 uniform state). The center picture has more dynamics, but e.g. the locations of the individual eddies and currents in the mixing can be treated as random.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-73510913063526356902016-02-17T11:11:37.767-08:002016-02-17T11:11:37.767-08:00"That post has little math and is mostly pict..."That post has little math and is mostly pictures."<br /><br /><br />And just so you know, Shannon's paper is next on the list - printed sometime ago and ready to read, just haven't got there.<br /><br />Also, I have purchased Hidalgo's book to add context and background. Yet to be read.<br /><br />No sealioning here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com