Why Information Grows | Hacker News Reader

Why Information Grows

paulromer.net

53 pointssergeant311 comments

For people who might not be economists, let me give some background.

Paul Romer is a quite influential and famous economist who is one of the creators of modern "endogenous growth theory". Growth theory is about coming up with simple models of how we think economies grow over time. His theory suggests that economic growth occurs because of innovations that come from features inherent to the society that is growing, and each step of growth has a feedback that affects the next phase of growth. So for example, the amount of knowledge in an economy determines the level of growth, and growth dictates the level of knowledge in the next phase. This is against exogenous growth theory where growth is as a result of exogenous technological innovations that arrive randomly and shock the system. He's widely tipped to win the Nobel sometime soon for this and related ideas.

Now, Bob Lucas, another famous macroeconomist and growth theorist (and Nobel Winner) and his co-authors have been in Romer's crosshairs for some time because of what he calls the "mathiness" of their work. He defines mathiness as something that "uses a mixture of words and symbols, but instead of making tight links, it leaves ample room for slippage between statements in natural versus formal language and between statements with theoretical as opposed to empirical content." (http://paulromer.net/mathiness/)

In a relentless series of posts and papers, he's been asking questions at the root of whether macro-economics is a science, how it works and how it could be improved. Hackers might like his "Illustrating Mathiness – Code Analogy" (http://paulromer.net/illustrating-mathiness-code-analogy) where he compares poorly done economic models with bad code.

Here are some more of those posts:

Needs More Math <=> Needs More Cowbell http://paulromer.net/more-cowbell/

Why the Mathiness in Lucas (2009) Matters http://paulromer.net/mathiness-lucas-2009/

The Assumptions in Growth Theory http://paulromer.net/assumptions-of-growth-theory/

Thanks for this, the context you provided is quite informative.

From the post, relevant to software design:

The key element in thinking like a physicist is being willing to push simultaneously to extreme levels of abstraction and specificity. This sounds paradoxical until you see it in action. Then it seems obvious. Abstraction means that you strip away inessential detail. Specificity means that you take very seriously the things that remain.

From "About Paul", relevant to network effects:

"Much of the texture and complexity of social progress is the result of a mismatch between stable social norms on the one hand, and the combination of continuously evolving technologies and continuously increasing scales of human interaction on the other. When technology changes and the scale of our interaction grows, our rules should change in parallel, but stable social norms can get in the way."

> Why is there no professional return investing in the clarity that it would bring to their models?

Because if economists made their thinking clear, then it would become obvious that they are not actually doing anything of sufficient value to merit the compensation they receive.

Yes. They're like the Philosophers' Union in HHGG. They'd be out of a job if, say, a giant computer just popped out a nice clear answer to the central question of life, the universe, and everything.

Point 4 in the first list is exactly why I wish people would stop trying to replace passwords and focus instead on augmenting them. Information codified physically (token or biometric) can be copied vastly more easily than information codified in neurons.

I've always thought Jeff Atwood made a mistake with SO by making it OID Only.

Care to go in-depth about the ramifications?

I shouldn't have to log into a different gmail account just to post on SO.

> We know from the physics of the brain and of human sensory receptors that it is impossible for a person to have direct access to the knowledge stored as neural connections in someone else’s brain.

Do we? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

Yes. A link to some discredited old Jungian Voodoo does little change that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com