Quote from: JorgeStolfi on September 12, 2014, 07:20:07 PM

Quote from: cmacwiz on September 12, 2014, 07:12:39 PM

All this market behavior seems like non-deterministic chaos AKA outcome is very sensitive to initial conditions and parameter variation. Similar to the weather. We know how it works to an extent, but the predictive power of the theory is lacking. Also, multiple atoms == statistical mechanics.

I'm a physicist; don't bring physics into this shit again

Agreed with all, except that statistical mechanics considers large numbers of SIMILAR atoms with VERY SIMPLE interactions (such as elastic collisions). If you have several types of atoms mixed together, or they interact in slightly more complex ways (eg. by covalent bonds) then Statistical Mechanics has nothing to say.

Well I don't agree, as something like a crystal structure (even a complex one) can be treated as a periodic potential for the behavior of electrons in said crystal lattice. Not even to mention the myriad of Van der Waals forces/effects (sometimes applicable). Just one example, and the behavior of these electrons vary in specific cases, which we still can't explain. If a theory cannot explain a physical phenomenon, then it isn't correct or complete. So to bring it back to economics, there is a difference in what each community expects from their theories. All the market analysis varies from solid statistical analysis to graphs riddled with confirmation bias and some wavelet bullshit. This is really why I would not compare the two, or put a economics as a subset of physics. The expectation of the theories differ.

But it is semantics arguing when stat-mech blends into p-chem blends into material science.