1 of 17

Matteo Richiardi

Complexity Economics

University of Turin

February-April 2024

2 of 17

Lecture 5:�Non-ergodicity and uncertainty

Matteo Richiardi

Complexity Economics

University of Turin

February-April 2024

Sources:

  • Bookstaber, ch. 5
  • Miller & Pace, ch. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

3 of 17

Ergodicity

  • Ergodicity means that the ensemble average is the same as the time average.

4 of 17

Time and ensemble averages

5 of 17

Lotteries

  • 50% chance of winning 50%
  • 50% chance of losing 40%

Would you like to take such bet if offered repeatedly?

6 of 17

Non-ergodicity /1

  • Non-ergodicity means that the ensemble average is NOT the same as the time average.

Note: the right hand graph is in logs

7 of 17

Non-ergodicity /2

  • Time averages of different individuals are different, and different from the ensemble average.
  • When t 🡪∞, the ensemble average also goes to ∞, while all time averages converge to 0.

8 of 17

Implications of non-ergodicity

  • Path dependency (history matters)
  • This might lead to multiple equilibria

E.g.: the tie problem:

  • On your first day of work: choose randomly.
  • On subsequent days: follow the crowd (majority of colleagues).

9 of 17

Radical Uncertainty

  • Non-ergodicity implies that we can often describe the world in probabilistic terms.
  • But can we ever get to know all possible states?
  • Non-ergodicity also implies that small changes in inputs (e.g. policies) can produce large (and persistent) changes in outputs (e.g. outcomes)

does it ring a bell? (Lorenz’s butterfly effect)

10 of 17

Reflexivity

  • A reflexive system where any observer is also a participant and there is a two-way feedback between the participant/observer and the system.

🡪 The agents change the environment in which they operate

Participant-observation approach in Sociology

11 of 17

Reflexivity: necessary conditions

Beinhocker (2013)

12 of 17

An example: Schelling’s Segregation model /1

One afternoon, settling into an airplane seat, I had nothing to read. To amuse myself I experimented with pencil and paper. I made a line of x’s and o’s that I somehow randomized, and postulated that every x wanted at least half its neighbors to be x’s and similarly with o’s. Those that weren’t satisfied would move to where they were satisfied.

13 of 17

Schelling’s Segregation model /2

At home [...] I made a 16x16 checkerboard, located zincs and coppers at random with about a fifth of the spaces blank, got my twelve-year-old to sit across from me at the coffee table, and moved discontented zincs and coppers to where their demands for like or unlike neighbors were met.

The dynamics were sufficiently intriguing to keep my twelve-year-old engaged.”

14 of 17

Schelling’s Segregation model /3

Initial (random) pattern �

Final pattern �

Segregation model: tolerance threshold = .3; density = 0.9.

15 of 17

Schelling’s Segregation model /4

Segregation model: tolerance threshold = .3; density = 0.9; grid size = 15x15.

16 of 17

Non-ergodicty in the Schelling model /1

Segregation model: tolerance threshold = .3; density = 0.9; grid size = 15x15.

17 of 17

Non-ergodicity in the Schelling model /2

Grid size = 15x15

Grid size = 150x150

Segregation model: tolerance threshold = .3; density = 0.9.