FRACTAL ECONOMICS

Is our mind a fractal object or pattern collector, and if so, does the fractal explain laughter and sadness - as the object changes, its shape changes? This entry follows up on my earlier blogs on equilibrium, particularly the shape being set at or around iteration 7. Fractal development: Koch snowflake and equilibrium at iteration 7 Could this be how our minds recognise  –  and know  –  objects or shapes? If the universe is full of repeating patterns, then to know something, all we need is a collection of patterns; we don't need any detail at all. This can be demonstrated (below) by Koch snowflake development: as the snowflake develops, the 'stickman' develops; at some point  –  around 7 plus or minus 2 iterations  – the shape is known, and the stickman is defined. At iteration one, we know nothing. In the above diagram, we see the fractal development of a human figure. At iteration 1, the shape is unknown; by iteration 5, we know it is a recognisable human

The paradox of value or the diamond water paradox is well established, and it is not my intent to challenge it but rather show that the fractal complements it—explains it. As I have shown earlier, the demand curve is derived from the fractal. It follows that if there is any substance of truth to my thinking, it must address the likes of this paradox, too. The answer to this paradox of value is that diamonds are valued highly because they are assumed to be scarce. They have a low Total Utility and a high Marginal Utility (or value). Goods similar to this are positioned to the left of any Marginal analysis diagram. Water is less valued than diamonds because  it is (assumed) abundant. Water has a high total utility and low marginal utility. The fractal explains this paradox - or at least demonstrates it.   If the object is not developed fractally speaking, it is positioned to the elastic left end of the fractal MA curve in Fig. 1: another iteration will return a similarly hig

The fractal record – like the fossil record that inspired its name – is a record of the ‘different’ (occurrences) of the ‘same’ (object or rule), not only through time - as in the fossil record - but through the present, the now. It is a record of the where? The examples - at all scales. This is to say that the fossil record is actually a fractal record - that traces the path of bones through time. The fractal record is based on laws of fractality (which I will release soon) and, most importantly, on the principle of ceteris paribus - setting all else constant. In this state, the only thing discernible, or true, is the object, as demonstrated below in the Koch snowflake development and the creator-scape. Of course, the fractal record is the foundation of language, knowledge, and science; it is universality. And I have great plans for it. Used correctly, we shall see that the discovery of the fractal was one of our great discoveries.

Fractal Pareto Efficiency In a comment made on my fractalnomics YouTube clip, Pareto and the fractal came up—is there a connection? Not to take the creativity from the person with the question, I began to think about it myself.   Pareto efficiency is where one cannot be made better off without making another worse off.  It is said to be achieved at your full potential or market equilibrium. Fractal Pareto Efficiency Since the fractal demonstrates and shows market equilibrium (see my earlier work), fractal equilibrium is also the point of Pareto efficiency. Further to this - and trying to be in line with the Pareto efficiency definition (above) -  the merging of  fractal development with fractal decay (as seen below) shows fractal Pareto Efficiency, where: ('new') information cannot be gained by losing ('old')information. or, put another way - we cannot go forward or grow without leaving something behind.

Ceteris Paribus - keeping all other factors equal or constant. Fractal Isolation This entry shows that fractals demonstrate that Ceteris Paribus exists in reality and has connections directly to our understanding of reality—even possibly at the atomic scale.   Ceteris Paribus  is a central assumption behind economic models and analysis—and, of course, unbeknown to others, all science itself. It assumes or sets all other factors equal or constant, allowing us to study the pattern of the object in question. Without it, the 'cause' and the 'effect' would not be discernible—or would be confused in the 'chaos'. I often explain to those outside economics that this is our way of achieving a controlled laboratory experiment. This is also seen as the weakness of economics, as we don't (really) live in a 'ceteris paribus' world; we live in chaos. I would strongly argue—again—that this is the weakness of all the 'sciences'. We may have theories,

This entry is an addition to my earlier work on fractal marginal utility, something I have been reluctant to add due to the consequences of such a statement. I am convinced that negative marginal utility is misattributed: the MU curve does not go negative, as shown below. Wikipedia. The fractal shows us that production and benefit are never separated; you cannot have one without the other. The increasing marginal cost (MC) after fractal equilibrium (green in Fig. 2 and 2b below) is more than enough to account for this 'negative marginal utility'. The cost rises - greater than the satisfaction or benefit  -after fractal equilibrium: this is the feeling of being ill after excess consumption, of having had too much of something.

I put it out there, paradigms are a fractal phenomenon. This insight is only a day old (2011-09-02): It was inspired by talking to one of my students. Last year, I saw that she (not knowing it) drew or doodled Sierpinski fractals (below) in the corner of her workbooks, and I thought it was pretty cool. I pointed out to her  - at the time - that she could only draw down to 7 plus or minus 2 different triangle sizes in one doodle. Yesterday, she returned to me and questioned me again on this: Is that the limit? 7?   I explained that 7 plus or minus 2 at one standing, view, or perspective, but if we zoom in, we will see more and more - as they come into focus, but there will always be 7 - yes. Later, it came to me that this standing or perspective is a paradigm, as demonstrated by the fractal development below. The paradigm is the view from the first iteration to fractal equilibrium. A change in paradigm comes with zooming into the fractal (universe), leaving the past behin