On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Ken Brown wrote:
One of the classic examples of what is now called chaos (a word that I
don't like in this context). The exact trajectory taken by simple models
Uhuh...
of predator-prey systems is often very sensitively dependent on initial
conditions. Of course in
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No.
Maybe.
People who think like economists or libertarians will conclude
that markets tend to stability, because humans will analyze
fluctuations,
The examples of stable free markets include lots of examples that are not
involved with
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
Except if they're, paradoxically, Austrian economists, like Hayek, or von
Mises, who reject scientism and, oddly enough, equilbrium theory.
Then again Mises equated 'capitalism' with 'economics'...even the great
fallfor a good intro to some
--
On 25 Apr 2002 at 18:26, Ken Brown wrote:
This kind of thing has implications for economics technology
markets of course (cf Santa Fe, ad infinitum). People who think
like ecologists tend to assume that a more complex market, with
more participants, and more kinds of interaction
At 12:15 PM -0700 on 4/27/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People who think like economists or libertarians will conclude
that markets tend to stability, because humans will analyze
fluctuations, attempt to predict them, and then take precautionary
action to protect themselves, which will have
--
At 12:15 PM -0700 on 4/27/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People who think like economists or libertarians will conclude
that markets tend to stability, because humans will analyze
fluctuations, attempt to predict them, and then take
precautionary action to protect themselves, which
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
For example, when a sheep dies you get more
grass for the remaining sheep, which gets you more sheep again,
so you can do a reasonable job of predicting sheep population
without knowing anything about the fates of individual sheep.
Actually as the cycle time
On 23 Apr 2002 at 18:56, Tim May wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 11:18 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
Back nearer to on-topic, Tim's explanation why the world could not be
predicted even if it were locally (microscopically) predictable sounds
spot-on.
It's not my idea, obviously. But the
On 23 Apr 2002 at 18:56, Tim May wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 11:18 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
Back nearer to on-topic, Tim's explanation why the world could not be
predicted even if it were locally (microscopically) predictable sounds
spot-on.
It's not my idea, obviously. But the
