I do take your point, but just because independent behaviors of emergent natural systems are not susceptible to deterministic analysis of the usual sort doesn't mean they're not observable, dangerous and generally predictable by other more general means, right?
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:50:43 To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Overshoot self-correction to collapse in the S&P 500Mar-Aug 07 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Well, the counter example shows no systemicity at all, so perfectly well > behaved. Markets are not supposd to display, as the example, emergent > systemicity of any kind, let alone dramatic self-destructive behavior.... > I suggest you get a time series trading dataset and state exactly what you think the dynamic signature is and what you think it is caused by. Then filter the data down to periods at and after a finite period after those causes (e.g. news events), and look for the signature for a finite period of time within which you posit the signature should occur. Do the same for all other times and see how often the signature occurs, taking care not to double count overlapping periods, which could easily if you defined the signature to merely occur `someday'. You should see enrichment of the signature to the cause. If you see it for both the `caused' and `non-caused' periods, then all you have is a story. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
