Quote from: JorgeStolfi on September 12, 2014, 08:33:40 PM

Quote from: xyzzy099 on September 12, 2014, 08:13:34 PM

You are describing dynamic nonlinear (chaotic) systems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system#Nonlinear_dynamical_systems_and_chaos

No, the economy is not just a "chaotic system". That is a system with a very few parameters and simple deterministic rule that nonetheless has a very complicated and practically unpredictable behavior. Even so, one can study such systems mathematically and prove rigorously statements about them (I even have a paper on them.)

The economy is MUCH worse, one cannot even start describing it mathematically.

(In case it is not obvious, I have an extremely low opinion of economists. I don't think that it was a coincidence that the president of Brazil who was absolutely best for the economy was a mechanics worker without college education. Dilma unfortunately has a degree in Economics, and picked an Economists as her chief of staff; even though she is politically committed to keep the country going in the right direction, she is visibly hampered by that handicap.)

It looks to me like you are redefining the definition of all chaotic systems as the definiton of the simplest such system - but, the definition of chaotic systems, again, is not why I originally responded to you.

Your contention that a system that is complex is a priori utterly resistant to scientific method seems absolutely silly

Honestly, NotLambChop made my point in a post above better than I was making it.

FWIW, I share your disdain for "economists" in general, as I perceive most of them to be philosophers or politicians, rather than scientists. I would not, however, paint them all with that brush.