> It's more usual to accept a weaker claim: that markets are the most efficient approximation to the perfect algorithm for price discovery

This claim is just as problematic. You may view it as weaker, but algorithmicly speaking it's the same nonsense. Algorithms in similar complexity classes are usually translatable to each other, which is to say they can be framed in terms of each other. You appear to be claiming that markets are the most efficient variant of an algorithmic class. Which is, again, nonsense. It might have some very nice qualities compared to other algorithms within it's class, but to claim it's the most efficient is, again, problematic.

A claim like that would require proof, not just the absence of contradicting evidence.

> Insisting that no better approach is possible is a strong claim; you'll find it in the wild

Ok, but I do believe the poster I was originally disagreeing with is arguing that:

> the market is an emergent behavior. It’s governed by laws beyond our control as surely as the behavior of materials are governed by thermodynamics.

> If the behavior of your markets fails to match the reality of the market, the best you can hope for is to only introduce a small amount of inefficiency. Of course, utopians who ignore the real nature of the market usually find themselves lethally encumbered by deadweight loss

This appears to be a strong claim that nothing can be more efficient than "the market" without introducing inefficiency or "lethal[.]" dead-weight loss.

> markets are what we have, and they're what we should use, with the burden of proof firmly on the inventor of anything new to demonstrate that it has greater efficiency.

This is a fallacious argument against my point.

To begin with, a new algorithm in the same class as markets is likely to have the same or similar efficiency. And it will be the other properties of it that are more interesting.

But the real issue is that the double standard people argue with the efficient market hypothesis (and especially the economic calculation problem) is problematic because it misunderstands computation. You simultaneously claim (in this post) to have the best approximation due to a lack of contradicting evidence, but then also want alternatives to provide proof of beating that physically impossible standard.

My main response though is: just because markets are the best thing we have does not mean we should accept absurd claims about them. Just because solar energy is effectively unlimited, does not make it a perpetual motion machine.

> This claim is just as problematic. You may view it as weaker, but algorithmicly speaking it's the same nonsense.

It's an existential claim, not a mathematical claim.

The claim is simply that markets are more efficient than other mechanisms, proposed or extant, which actually exist in the real world.

Clearly to quantify this claim requires some real mathematical analysis, but that's quite beyond my talents or interest. I'm just here to point out that the weakened claim is "markets are the best we've got", not anything theoretical nor abstract.

And I'd suggest reading my reply to the absurd thermodynamics bit before assuming too much about my thoughts on it!

> And I'd suggest reading my reply to the absurd thermodynamics bit before assuming too much about my thoughts on it!

I mean. My issue is multi-fold. I have an issue with market fundamentalists who treat it like a religion. But I also have an issue with economists who use methods of analysis that aren't empirical.

> It's an existential claim, not a mathematical claim.

This isn't just an issue of philosophy and mathematics in the abstract. Computation is a physical phenomena. The claim of efficiency being made here, even in the weaker version, is not congruent with reality.

It's an existential claim that would be no different than chemists shouting "this chemical reaction will continue forever" (a violation of the second law of thermodynamics).

> I'm just here to point out that the weakened claim is "markets are the best we've got", not anything theoretical nor abstract.

The weaker claim is no different than doctors who once believed in the four humors. It's not technically an incorrect categorization of reality given current knowledge in the field. But it's a piece of general economics knowledge that has no backing in reality, nor is falsifiable, nor provides predictive use.

And every time an economist spouts that sort of nonsense I can't help but remember their field must be primarily pesduo-science. I don't know how they expect me to take them seriously when they are still yelling about four humors and perpetual chemical interactions.

Because existential claims like this one are incongruent with reality. I don't know many times I can emphasize this point, the claim, even the weakest version I have seen, is not physically possible, hence it would require extraordinary evidence. It would upset the entire field of computation if it were true. It stands in opposition to modern pillars of computational reality, no different than claiming one had a perpetual motion machine would physics. Humanity would be like gods if it were true. You can continue to claim it all you want, but it's as misguided as claiming the earth is flat.

There is one prime difference between computation and economics - and for that matter, material and social sciences. Computation doesn't study humans.

Wouldn't a "unified theory" of economics (a deterministic one at that) effectively rule out free will? After all, what is "the market" if not the aggregate behaviour of all human actors in it? And if you accept free will, doesn't that conversely create a problem where the best you can do when predicting markets is correlation, not causality?