Skip to main content

Game Theory, Equilibrium Theory, and Complexity

Image result for brian arthur economist

"In general equilibrium analysis, agents do not interact with one another directly, but only through impersonal markets. By contrast, in game theory all players interact with all other players, with outcomes specified by the game's payoff matrix."

Brian Arthur et al aren't so much contrasting game theory against GE analysis here, although that is what it sounds like. Rather they are saying that GE and GT have something in common, and they propose a model of economics, "complexity," that moves away from that commonality.

The quote comes from a introduction to a volume published in 1997 by the Santé Fe Institute, and as Arthur later wrote it was "as close as out economics program ... came to a manifesto."

The commonality is that interaction structures in both of the older theories are simple and extreme, either one-with-all or all-with-all.  In complexity, agents are chunked, so some interact more with their neighbors than with distant parties, and interact with distant parties only indirectly through the chunking.

That, BTW, is Brian Arthur's photo above.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…