tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post1219760653034149423..comments2024-01-13T18:57:18.243-05:00Comments on Information Processing: Economics, ant farmers and free will theoremsSteve Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-68848435241240239462009-05-09T23:33:00.000-04:002009-05-09T23:33:00.000-04:00In an effort to return the comments on this post t...In an effort to return the comments on this post to the topic at hand, I offer the following:<br /><br /><A HREF="http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21274" REL="nofollow"><STRONG>The Last Temptation of Risk</STRONG></A>by <A HREF="http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~eichengr/" REL="nofollow">Barry Eichengreen</A>[Barry Eichengreen is the George C. Pardee and Helen N. Pardee Professor of CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671404306768077552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-52334014113884814222009-05-09T13:30:00.000-04:002009-05-09T13:30:00.000-04:00I think the question of "free will" is puzzling on...I think the question of "free will" is puzzling only because we are so involved and attached to it.<br /><br />Consider an ensemble of isolated people with exactly the same genetics who have experienced exactly the same life who are faced with a decision.<br /><br />Either they make the decision based on their genetics and life experiences, in which case they all decide the same, or there is an Michael Salemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05074085486685205543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-16489059921751566892009-05-09T08:40:00.000-04:002009-05-09T08:40:00.000-04:00dropped into your space via MIT Tech review.
Anyh...dropped into your space via MIT Tech review.<br /><br />Anyhow: here is my suggestion. TAKE SERIOUSLY THE POSSIBILITY THAT AT LEAST SOME HUMANS CAN "IMAGINE IT SO"... that is: they are at times unbounded by so-called "pysical laws". What if this isn't mystical bullshit? Naturally, if true, this would shake the foundations of what humans think "reality" is... and science wouldn't be so happyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01502916243068310860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-76584550416738629922009-05-09T01:32:00.000-04:002009-05-09T01:32:00.000-04:00You know, Steve, I've thought about this problem f...You know, Steve, I've thought about this problem for decades. To me it seems intuitive that human behavior is too labile to model mathematically. The way individual human beings react to changes in price is influenced by whims/fashions/imperfect information in ways that are unquantifiable. Sure, the basic laws of supply and demand hold but beyond that it is like using a sponge as a lever. Luke Leahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11290760894780619646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-66561375604999194282009-05-08T11:42:00.000-04:002009-05-08T11:42:00.000-04:00Derman's thoughts on the conference: http://www.wi...Derman's thoughts on the conference: http://www.wilmott.com/blogs/eman/index.cfm/2009/5/7/Economics-as-Economics<br /><br />So, Steve, when are you taking a sabbatical at SFI? :)Dave Baconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03506030153326411733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-86426160838671176032009-05-08T01:44:00.000-04:002009-05-08T01:44:00.000-04:00Steve has run a business. Or at least he has repor...Steve has run a business. Or at least he has reported he has. <br /><br />He must have learned from that experience that theory is a luxury.<br /><br />As Heidegger says in so many words in the Question Concerning Technology, modern science is NOT the father of nor the handmaiden of modern technology, but the remittance man of modern technology.<br /><br />Physics was the easiest subject for me, Ian Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06837467954881003505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-47535713762408141862009-05-08T01:05:00.000-04:002009-05-08T01:05:00.000-04:00Steve, I'll sleep on your question. I need to thin...Steve, I'll sleep on your question. I need to think about what it means to be a robot. When I looked up robot on Wikipedia, I became confused about what a robot is supposed to be, as opposed to an android, cyborg, etc. <br /><br />What I will say is that it is up to us to decide if we want to say that a robot discovered that it is a robot. It would not be enough for a robot to tell me, "Hey, Don,Donald Pretarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14493535232127084725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-17584980086185758732009-05-07T20:51:00.000-04:002009-05-07T20:51:00.000-04:00> Is it that none of them has ever run a busine...> Is it that none of them has ever run a business?<br /><br />Some of them have :-)<br /><br />But I agree with your point.<br /><br /><br />Don: could a robot discover that he is indeed a robot?Steve Hsuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-91281737191772520852009-05-07T20:40:00.000-04:002009-05-07T20:40:00.000-04:00"The attendees were a mix of theoretical physicist..."The attendees were a mix of theoretical physicists (with particle physics and complexity theory, especially the Santa Fe Institute, well represented), practitioners from Wall St. (often from a math or physics background), academic economists (Barkley Rosser, Richard Freeman, etc.) and evolutionary biologists."<br /><br />What makes these people think they are relevant? <br /><br />Is it that Ian Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06837467954881003505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-13416485758086560132009-05-07T20:30:00.000-04:002009-05-07T20:30:00.000-04:00"if our current understanding of physical laws is ..."if our current understanding of physical laws is correct, humans have only the illusion of free will."<br /><br />I don't see how this could possibly follow. If I say, "If our current understanding of free will is correct, physical laws are only an illusion", how would we choose between the two positions?<br /><br />But, at least in my view, my being subject to an illusion makes sense, since my Donald Pretarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14493535232127084725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-40012924591221172052009-05-07T19:06:00.000-04:002009-05-07T19:06:00.000-04:00[PS: I hadn't previously read this nice historical...[PS: I hadn't previously read this nice historical <A HREF="http://www.ederman.com/new/docs/commentary-einsteins.html" REL="nofollow">piece</A> by Jeremy Bernstein from the September 2004 <EM>Commentary</EM>, which is replicated on Derman's website.]CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671404306768077552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-77665900904492673462009-05-07T19:05:00.000-04:002009-05-07T19:05:00.000-04:00Someone described social science as "making theori...Someone described social science as "making theories about things that make theories" :-)Steve Hsuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-31979083653062490582009-05-07T18:49:00.000-04:002009-05-07T18:49:00.000-04:00A remark that sticks with me occurred in Emanuel D...A remark that sticks with me occurred in Emanuel Derman's talk, which I found as absorbing as Andrew Lo's. I don't recall the exact wording, but the essence was this:<br /><br />When we construct a theory of bird flight, the birds pay no attention; they just keep flying as they always have. However, when we construct economic theories—theories of how markets work—the participants in CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671404306768077552noreply@blogger.com