Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA03528 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:37:24 GMT Message-Id: <200012151737.RAA03528@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk> Errors-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org To: CAMREC list members <email@example.com> From: the Campaign for Real Economics <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:34:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: CAMREC: Egalitarianism in a world of power-law distributions
--- the Campaign for Real Economics <email@example.com>
> Allusions to a (possible prerequisite) 'fairly
> stable environment' seem
> problematic when discussing evolutionary dynamics.
> I'd rather allude to a
> slowly evolving 'agents' or 'networks' in a chaotic
> environment. Everything is changing except the
> speed of light.
In a possible strong form of the statement I disagree,
but fairly stable is a relative concept. Therefore, we
might argue about whether the glass is half-full or
For me matter relative speeds between changes in and
of the environment relative to speed of mutations
tracking these, resp. mutations bringing about new
"ways of earning your life" eg entering a new niche
due to a new function/property - to argue from the
biological point of view.
I don't like "chaotic", even in the sense of
deterministic chaos, because also in social systems
there is next to all that change a lot of cultures,
traditions, imitation etc which constrains change to
certain "chreodes" (to take an expression of
Waddington from the area of developmental biology)
watching politics which was fun because: the
development of debates was usually pretty well
predictable in the sense that you could predict the
next few rounds of the discussion based on the last
step in the context of the history of the debate. I
could also form pretty strong convictions about sth
like an attractor where the issue would end up in the
end... which sometimes was not too much off the mark.
Surprise, surprise - thats what a lot of people do
when predicting stock performance traditionally or
using neural networks
I felt pretty sure that the same is true for
historical processes in general esp. if you took
account of the frames/mindsets of political actors -
but that is easy to state for an historical process
and difficult to prove...so I left the area of history
and went into management/economics
> I probably should apologize. Bringing up
> egalitarianism is essentially a
> request for a conversation on 'welfare' and here I
> am joking around as if
> I'm above the semantic quagmire.
nobody can be above that, I guess, that's just
included in the concept and the different value
judgement people make...
> BTW, what is Stauffer's relexitivity?
He certainly did not include it in his
analysis/prediction so I don't think he cares. He just
pointed me to Sornette that his (Sornette's) theory,
or I should say model, might be better suited to deal
with such effects than his own (Stauffer's)
I got to reflexitivity by common sense but didn't know
how to call it and finally came across the concept in
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 15 2000 - 17:37:26 GMT