tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post1943359517961680798..comments2023-06-03T07:19:32.501-07:00Comments on Information Transfer Economics: Models and frameworksJason Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-88953870468950509712016-01-29T11:18:11.397-08:002016-01-29T11:18:11.397-08:00Thanks for the link. I will check out their work.Thanks for the link. I will check out their work.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-23870548776664001782016-01-28T19:14:21.511-08:002016-01-28T19:14:21.511-08:00It would be great if you got together with Paul Co...It would be great if you got together with Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrill. I'm sure you'd have plenty to talk about and a fruitful collaboration could occur.<br /><br />http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/<br /><br />pe<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-4988760781870250052016-01-28T15:57:50.899-08:002016-01-28T15:57:50.899-08:00Sort of. You still don't know if there is an i...Sort of. You still don't know if there is an intermediate variable, so you won't necessarily know which model it has "degenerated" into. But assuming there isn't an intermediate variable, then yes.<br /><br />And yes, we wouldn't know until it happens. And we might not know it has already happened as the system might always have been non-ideal.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-23929581552158999332016-01-28T14:34:07.560-08:002016-01-28T14:34:07.560-08:00Ah, OK, so let me try to restate that. So given
p...Ah, OK, so let me try to restate that. So given <br />p1 : A ⇄ B<br />it follows that we must also have<br />p2 : B ⇄ A<br />but should this degenerate into non-ideal transfer, then we will have (at most) one of:<br />A → B<br />or<br />B → A<br />but never both. So say A ⇄ B degenerates into B → A for which there's a p2* < p2 and an A* < A, then is it fair to say that A → B is just not happening at all at that point? I.e. no information flow from A to B?<br /><br />Is which way a system in IE degenerates entirely determined by the qualities of the system, or is it possible a system could be a priori indeterminate in regards to which way it degenerates into non-ideal information transfer? In other words, we won't know until it happens?<br />Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-12538167517473382432016-01-28T13:55:28.741-08:002016-01-28T13:55:28.741-08:00If you have ideal information transfer (informatio...If you have ideal information transfer (information equilibrium), it doesn't matter the order of A and B. But for non-ideal, it does and the two systems B → A and A → B are different. Either A is the source or B is the source -- both can't be the source.<br /><br />You can use transitivity and reflexivity for information equilibrium, but not for non-ideal where you have to be careful about what mathematical operations do to your inequalities.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-2960616494235091982016-01-28T13:49:32.601-08:002016-01-28T13:49:32.601-08:00Given
p1 : A ⇄ B
you say above that A ⇄ B implie...Given<br /><br />p1 : A ⇄ B<br /><br />you say above that A ⇄ B implies B ⇄ A which must mean we have a separate p2 such that:<br /><br />p2 : B ⇄ A<br /><br />Under IE, then it appears p1 = 1/p2<br /><br />Now are there two separate non-ideal information flows we could consider?<br /><br />A → B, having a non-ideal price p1* < p1, and a non-ideal supply B* < B.<br /><br />but potentially simultaneously also (or assuredly also?)<br /><br />B → A with p2* < p2 and A* < A<br /><br />?<br /><br />I guess what I'm asking is does A ⇄ B degenerating into A → B necessarily imply that B ⇄ A degenerates into B → A where all four of the above inequalities hold? I guess what's confusing about that to me is that as B* becomes less than B (as information transfer starts to become non-ideal for some reason) this in turn implies a new lower upper bound on A*, etc. It seems like a potential negative feedback loop that quickly approaches 0 for both A* and B*. I'm probably misinterpreting something here, but I'm reading B* (for the A → B relation) as the actual B achieved, as compared to the best case (ideal) B which results from information equilibrium (A ⇄ B). But if that's true, then this should give rise to a an actual A (A*) which is less than the ideal A, etc.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-32659606799503737592016-01-28T12:04:09.946-08:002016-01-28T12:04:09.946-08:00OK, I saw this.OK, I saw <a href="http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v40/n1s/full/npp2015326a.html#T209.-EEG-as-an-Information-Transfer-Device" rel="nofollow">this</a>.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-10219636444541355112016-01-28T11:38:25.897-08:002016-01-28T11:38:25.897-08:00Good examples. Thanks.
Do tell more about this pa...Good examples. Thanks.<br /><br />Do tell more about this paper you and Todd put together. When did that happen and is it available to read?Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-16728611012434997442016-01-28T10:53:34.163-08:002016-01-28T10:53:34.163-08:00Since it is so easy to test empirical data on FRED...Since it is so easy to test empirical data on FRED for plausibility with this framework, it's nearly always an empirical test.<br /><br />But the criterion is basically the existence of two process variables (A, B) that are "macro scale" aggregates of some underlying "micro scale" degrees of freedom that you don't necessarily know much about -- along with some possible path of information transfer from A to B.<br /><br />Example: biological activity effects on the atmospheres of two planets meets the first part, but fails in a path of information transfer. Fails the test.<br /><br />Example: neurons producing EEG signals in wake/sleep states. Passes the test (and Todd Zorick and I put together a paper on this).<br /><br />Example: humans playing chess. This probably fails because while the human brains are made up of neurons, there is the approximation of effective free will and so there effectively aren't any underlying micro-scale degrees of freedom. However an MMOG might pass.<br /><br />But there aren't that many criteria to check<br /><br />Two process variables<br />Micro scale degrees of freedom<br />Plausible information transfer channel<br /><br />So the deciding factor is usually just looking at empirical data.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-62396482533364000372016-01-27T19:35:03.945-08:002016-01-27T19:35:03.945-08:00Ha... good points. How about this: have you ever h...Ha... good points. How about this: have you ever had this experience personally, where you changed your mind about trying to apply the ITM before you got very far.<br /><br />I guess I was looking for a case that you would describe as follows:<br /><br />"Because of its properties A, B and C case X might at first seem like a good candidate to analyze using the IT framework but unfortunately, because of its properties D, E and F the IT framework is actually likely to be a poor choice."Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-22508345400194309032016-01-27T18:35:21.881-08:002016-01-27T18:35:21.881-08:00I'm not sure how I'm supposed to answer th...I'm not sure how I'm supposed to answer this question. How do you come up with something that seems "perfectly appropriate at first" but would be rejected after thinking about it more?<br /><br />This involves defining a scale of thinking T0 where if T < T0, the model is good, but if T > T0 the model is bad. I have no idea what T0 means ... is it people who have had calculus? Is the number of thought experiments that have to be done? How many thought experiments do you have to do to reject a theory?Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-40738976158452219572016-01-27T18:07:05.916-08:002016-01-27T18:07:05.916-08:00Can you think of an example (in any field: physics...Can you think of an example (in any field: physics, economics, whatever) for which the information transfer/equilibrium framework might seem perfectly appropriate at first, but after further contemplation, a researcher might rightly conclude to reject it (without ever getting as far as checking it empirically)? If so, what would be the reason to reject the ITM in that example?Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-23684679798735267182016-01-27T17:50:37.661-08:002016-01-27T17:50:37.661-08:00Thanks. If that's not already there, you might...Thanks. If that's not already there, you might consider adding a paragraph like that to your draft Summer talk paper to tie those two sections together.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-19158509531733222502016-01-27T17:36:14.055-08:002016-01-27T17:36:14.055-08:00Each point in the triangle is one of the n = S/dS ...Each point in the triangle is one of the n = S/dS bits (or bytes or whatever): the supply states. Demand is held constant (a demand bath). Expanding the triangle (or just expanding it in one direction as shown) increases the number of supply states leading to a fall in price (the centroid moves out) -- a demand curve.<br /><br />The other way is less intuitive in the same way that the supply curve analog of the PV isotherm "demand curve" with the opposite relationship is less intuitive.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-71923023582791824332016-01-27T17:22:43.452-08:002016-01-27T17:22:43.452-08:00Thanks Jason.Thanks Jason.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-16994490103539476092016-01-27T17:11:51.954-08:002016-01-27T17:11:51.954-08:00Also, I don't recall you covering an explicit ...Also, I don't recall you covering an explicit connection between the (Gary Becker type diagram)-derived demand curves and the P:D⇄S-partial-equilibrium-derived demand curves in your draft Summer talk paper. Is there one? Did I overlook it? I realize the former (Becker) gets more interesting as goods (markets?) (i.e. dimensions) are added while the latter (information equilibrium) can apply to a single good / market.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-12363728411085797982016-01-27T17:06:56.186-08:002016-01-27T17:06:56.186-08:00Regarding your follow-ups:
Nope.
And sure both o...Regarding your follow-ups:<br /><br />Nope.<br /><br />And sure both of those could make sense. The price P would be dA/dB, already implicit in the relationship A ⇄ B. You're just giving it a name. There is no difference between<br /><br />P : A ⇄ B<br />and <br />A ⇄ B<br /><br />It's just that "P" has a name in the first one.<br /><br />The second one would mean that A is a ceiling for B^k ... A > B^k for some k.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-28164237142672257322016-01-27T17:00:46.856-08:002016-01-27T17:00:46.856-08:001) It is notation. It is an equivalence relation i...1) It is notation. It is an equivalence relation in information equilibrium so that A ⇄ B means B ⇄ A, but not in the case of non-ideal information transfer.<br /><br />2) The supply and demand diagram represents what happens when you shift supply or demand curves, holding the other one constant. Calling it two relationships is not really a useful description, nor is calling it three relationships (shift supply curve, shift demand curve, don't shift either curve).<br /><br />3) Yes, it is a shorthand for<br /><br />A ⇄ B<br />and<br />B : C ⇄ D<br /><br />And no, it doesn't imply A : C ⇄ D. Two detectors being in information equilibrium with each other does not imply both detectors are detectors for another information equilibrium relationship.<br /><br />4) None of that theory is well-defined enough to warrant such precise definitions. What is the definition of quantity theory of money? Bennett McCallum says it is the EoE plus long run neutrality. The definitions only get more vague from there. The constant velocity version has the added bonus of being falsified empirically.<br /><br />Plus it is fairly obvious what I am talking about. It would be like a physicist calling <br /><br />ℒ = ϕ (∂² – m - g ϕ²) ϕ<br /><br />a ϕ^4 theory and some other physicist "correcting" him or her by saying it is a Lagrangian density for a ϕ^4 theory. At which point that second physicist would be bludgeoned with a handy copy of the "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation_(book)" rel="nofollow">phone book</a>".Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-36919381422960088312016-01-27T16:53:57.381-08:002016-01-27T16:53:57.381-08:00Do F&B have any examples (in any of their pape...Do F&B have any examples (in any of their paper's versions) that would be well described by the (A ⇄ B) : C ⇄ D relation? <br /><br />There are variations too I suppose, but do they make any sense?:<br /><br />(P : A ⇄ B) : C ⇄ D<br /><br />(A → B) : C ⇄ DTom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-24915413490786629282016-01-27T16:35:13.287-08:002016-01-27T16:35:13.287-08:00I'm very happy to see this post corral your cu...I'm very happy to see this post corral your current library of models and explain how they relate to your framework (including the failed ones). Great discussion of using data to validate or reject a hypothesized information equilibrium / transfer relationship.<br /><br />1) Regarding the notation A ⇄ B, the ⇄ is what? An operator? A signifier? It seems A ⇄ B does not imply B ⇄ A. "Causation" (you say) flows both ways, but the order of A and B is always significant: A (on the left) is the information source and B (on the right) is the destination, true?<br /><br />2) Regarding your 2nd bullet point: you also (sometimes?) get two partial equilibrium relationships, right? I'm thinking of both the supply and demand curves. Also in your paper you bring up the case where both D and S are slow moving. dD/dS = D0/S0 I think it was.<br /><br />3) The (A ⇄ B) : C ⇄ D is a little confusing to me still. Is that just shorthand for something longer, such as:<br />A ⇄ B<br />and<br />B : C ⇄ D<br />?<br />Something else? If true, does that imply anything else, such as:<br />A : B ⇄ D<br />Perhaps?<br /><br />4) I think of PY = MV as the "equation of exchange," serving only to define V for a choice of M. (one of the possibilities you bring up: and one I've heard Sumner advocate). The quantity theory is what happens when you in addition assume V is approximately constant. But I learned that from blogs... so maybe it's not right.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.com