Re: more simulation ideas
Douglas, One major problem you are going to run into is the inability of non-chaotic systems models to generate surprise (like innovations) as such models are completely defined. Innovation is one of the major factors from the human side and Mother Nature has tricks up her sleeve too. Any model which cannot explain it endogenously is fatally flawed. Economists have never been able to do it which is why they ignore it (they treat it as a residual in the power function of the production function). So the conventional algorithmic approach ultimately won't help, ditto non-chaotic simulation. You need something like biologist Stuart Kauffmans bootstrap model which is a chaotic simulation model, but it is only a baby step towards what you will need. Even then you have no way of specifying new future technologies which have the habit of completely transforming the global economic structure. You would only have some metaphorical clues as to how the transformations might occur. These makeovers occur every fifty to sixty years, so you can't assume them away in any long term model. In this I am agreeing with Ed and Eva, i.e. You have to have some theory of how things work, and you have to be able to conceive of and simulate alternative systems to the one we have now (entirely different social and technical systems). Otherwise you are simply projecting the status quo, which might be interesting in the short run, but is of no earthly use in the long run when we want to be able to imagine things being different than they are. You might want to look at the work which has been done at the International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis in Laxenburg Austria. Cesar Marchetti, who works there has done the only worthwhile work on anticipating innovation and energy systems that I have seen. Mike H >This is a response to several people who have commented on my idea of >running a simulation of the world economy, and I should mention >especially Pete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> who has some very useful ideas, >(as Tom Walker has also pointed out). > >First a few general comments: > >I want to do this myself, but I am willing to accept help, and I am >most interested in help collecting data. If I get enough help I am >quite willing to surrender all claims to this project to the >futurework mailing list as a whole and will gladly let someone else >take over and run the project if the list as a whole has no serious >objections at the time. > >I would like someone more reliable than me to keep an archive of >whatever is produced, in case I get run over by a bus, and I'd prefer >it to be made available by FTP to anyone who wants it. > >I'd like to use only public domain or freely redistributable math >libraries so the whole project can be freely redistributed under the >GNU public license. > >I think the target language should be plain-vanilla ANSI C with as few >preprocessor directives as possible, and it should compile with the >GNU gcc compiler (djgpp on DOS or Windows systems) using -Wall to >enable all warnings -- but without any warnings produced. Having just >said that, I will probably do some rapid-prototyping using Pascal >which is easier and supports array bounds checking, then translate it >into C using the p2c translator at some point. I'd like to use a real >programming language, a good one, but unforunately none has ever been >written! (Though I could say a few nice things about ML or Python, >which most people have never heard of.) > >In an earlier message (which I regret not responding to), Pete wrote: > >> On the other issue, I have no fear of mathematics, nor engineering, >> in analysis of social issues. However, I will state categorically >> that algorithm-based analysis is inadequate to the task, and most >> likely actively deceptive. Nothing less than fullblown simulation >> is able to yield a valid analysis, but this is something easily within >> reach of current computing power. Systems engineering applied to >> the whole problem of economic srtucture is fully mature and powerful >> enough to handle the problem, and is long overdue to supplant the >> voodoo algorithms of orthodox economic theory. > >I might have been more likely to respond to this comment if I >disagreed with it, such being human nature, but since it is so >obviously correct I just let it pass by unnoted -- sorry Pete. > >In particular I agree with his endorsement of systems engineering, and >since I do, I think the first step must be requirements analysis, >followed by design, and only then can code be written -- except for a >small amount of rapid-prototyping as proof of concept. > >Commenting on my plans to do a simulation Pete wrote: > >> This is an approach I have advocated for a long time, so of course >> I'm all in favour. However there are some important points to make: >> a proper simulation is not a trivial project; I had envisioned it >> being the product of a team effort in the order of several man-years. > >I'm still
more simulation ideas
This is a response to several people who have commented on my idea of running a simulation of the world economy, and I should mention especially Pete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> who has some very useful ideas, (as Tom Walker has also pointed out). First a few general comments: I want to do this myself, but I am willing to accept help, and I am most interested in help collecting data. If I get enough help I am quite willing to surrender all claims to this project to the futurework mailing list as a whole and will gladly let someone else take over and run the project if the list as a whole has no serious objections at the time. I would like someone more reliable than me to keep an archive of whatever is produced, in case I get run over by a bus, and I'd prefer it to be made available by FTP to anyone who wants it. I'd like to use only public domain or freely redistributable math libraries so the whole project can be freely redistributed under the GNU public license. I think the target language should be plain-vanilla ANSI C with as few preprocessor directives as possible, and it should compile with the GNU gcc compiler (djgpp on DOS or Windows systems) using -Wall to enable all warnings -- but without any warnings produced. Having just said that, I will probably do some rapid-prototyping using Pascal which is easier and supports array bounds checking, then translate it into C using the p2c translator at some point. I'd like to use a real programming language, a good one, but unforunately none has ever been written! (Though I could say a few nice things about ML or Python, which most people have never heard of.) In an earlier message (which I regret not responding to), Pete wrote: > On the other issue, I have no fear of mathematics, nor engineering, > in analysis of social issues. However, I will state categorically > that algorithm-based analysis is inadequate to the task, and most > likely actively deceptive. Nothing less than fullblown simulation > is able to yield a valid analysis, but this is something easily within > reach of current computing power. Systems engineering applied to > the whole problem of economic srtucture is fully mature and powerful > enough to handle the problem, and is long overdue to supplant the > voodoo algorithms of orthodox economic theory. I might have been more likely to respond to this comment if I disagreed with it, such being human nature, but since it is so obviously correct I just let it pass by unnoted -- sorry Pete. In particular I agree with his endorsement of systems engineering, and since I do, I think the first step must be requirements analysis, followed by design, and only then can code be written -- except for a small amount of rapid-prototyping as proof of concept. Commenting on my plans to do a simulation Pete wrote: > This is an approach I have advocated for a long time, so of course > I'm all in favour. However there are some important points to make: > a proper simulation is not a trivial project; I had envisioned it > being the product of a team effort in the order of several man-years. I'm still working on requirements analysis, but I have a few preliminary design ideas in mind. I'd like to make it entirely database driven, for several reasons, not least of which is my agreement with Pete that this should really be a big project. As I see it, the programs which actually run the simulation are in some ways the least important part of it, and should take the least work. The hard part is collecting good data and making it available in some standard form. I envision the collection of data being expandable almost endlessly, so that the simulation that might be up and running in a few months could be expanded with several man-years more work by simply collecting more data. To carry on with Pete's comments: > Most importantly, the simulation will be of no value if it is > algorithm-driven. To reflect the true picture, it must be an FSA > (Finite State Automata) model. Algorithms may be deduced from its > results, but not ordained in its construction.... I more or less agree with this, though might have some quibbles with using a finite-state machine, which does have some limitations. I am quite in sympathy with Pete's views on algorithms, but I think the key word is "ordained" -- there will be some room for algorithms loaded dynamically as data for the purpose of approximating what is not known. A model is just a model, after all, and cannot hope to do more than estimate most things, but I do want to minimize any reliance on "canonical" algorithms, to extend Pete's metaphor. > ... The simulation should model the actions of individual players, > and be iterated over cohorts over time. ... I'd like to turn that around and say that the simulation will model arbitrarily small units, which could eventually be individuals, but to start out with the units will probably be quite large, such as
