FRACTAL ECONOMICS

  I have since published in 2023:  Update: I have published on this blog, read here. I have been having a difficult time recently and am unsure what to do.  What do you suggest? I have taken down my many entries on the fractal because I am afraid they will not stand as an official claim to knowledge. Do I publish here on my own, using the low-cost web technology, or go through the usual costly, slow peer review process? My discoveries with the fractal have led me to - what I believe - a straightforward theory of Quantum Mechanics, or what might be called ' a theory of everything'. When I listen to the 'experts' on quantum mechanics, it is as if they are speaking about the same things I have discovered—but not yet published—in the fractal—everything!: duality, uncertainty, entanglement, time, and relativity. What am I to do? A 'highly' academic colleague has advised me to write articles, publish them, and shut down my blog. On the other hand, yesterda...

This entry adds to my entry on the evolution of the fractal. It should go without saying - but it does require a mention. Adaptation is demonstrated by (or in) the fractal as a change in shape; it is a change in the 'different' component of what makes a fractal—' same' but 'different' across all scales. If we substitute or add time, this may be read as 'same' but 'different' across  all time scales. This is to say that the same rule or shape will repeat in different ways—through time—as a result of outside influences; it will adapt or change. This adaptation is best demonstrated in the fossil record—'same' but 'different' through time.   It may be useful to reflect on the elasticity of the shape, its elasticity or sensitivity to change, changes through scale and/or time. This is shown in the diagram below and described in an earlier entry on Decay.

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 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...

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, ...