Its not a question of existence it is a question of applicability. You can't apply Invisible Hand to model actors that know and understand its mechanics.
Essentially the actors by understanding the invisible hand, they model it. So that model cannot now model said actors, you need a meta-model. It is an incompleteness argument really.
This is why I think that an AI, serving as metamodel can really be used to model economy. It may understand us if and only if we don't understand it.
Your argument is that once economic actors become aware of an economic model that can predict behavior they move to take advantage of this new information thus altering behavior and invalidating the model.
Yes
This is not always true. If the existing system distributes resources optimally accurate modeling may not open any arbitrage opportunities. Alternatively profits may come from identifying and circumventing market barriers that are inhibiting and preventing a walk towards equilibrium. In this event accurate modeling may result in actors that walk ever faster towards equilibrium.
So asymptotically this process will ultimately lead to actors that reach equilibrium in a single step, ergo Central Planner, and no more walking by Invisible hand.
If you don't accept this then you accept that the model can't work as in case 1
If AI progresses to the point where it can model and predict human economics it would rapidly replace humans as primary economic decision makers. However, rather then a single central AI I suspect you would see multiple AI's managing the economics of corporations and even households. The artificial intelligences would presumably not be able to fully model the behavior of other AI's due to processing power limitations. Thus equilibrium would again be obtained by a multitude of actors (this time artificial) working towards their individual goals and walking towards equilibrium as if guided by an invisible hand.
This is a path that will most likely be taken
before AI models human economics starting from shop bots, or trading agents. But there is an inflexion point. Up to this point AI will be simple following the wishes of the actor and understood by it but still susceptible to gaming it, so the hand may have its bot helpers for faster convergence, but will not be "Invisible". However after the inflection point where we cant understand AI but they us, the strategy AI will choose cannot be determined, Agents may choose to disregard a local search for equilibrium and opt to distributedly compute an optimum equilibrium
If we reach that inflection point however is open to debate.
The impossibility of a top-down omniscience was already proved:
This has already
been refuted (by Lindsey Lamport and other Byzantine fault tolerance researchers) because the speed-of-life is not infinite, thus no perspective can be a total ordering. Or stated another way, due to the delay of propagation of information there will exist a plurality of arbitrary perspectives none of which are a total ordering.
Sorry. It is impossible to argue with that truth.
But my pragmatism is, damn the torpedoes and cover thy eyes, ears, and logic. Buy the dips with your student lunch allowance!
It doesn't matter how observers alter their environment, because they can never alter ALL OF IT because the speed-of-light is not infinite.
thaaanos can chase his tail with unbounded failed attempts to obfuscate that inviolable fundamental fact.
Only the Invisible Hand of the trend of entropy to maxium (because time can't be reversed, thermodynamic processes are irreversible) is in control. The entropic force is fundamental. Even gravity has recently been shown to derive from it.
Well Life and Intelligence and Human societies run contrary to thermodynamics, we are not mere physical processes that anneal into a single state of thermodynamic equilibrium. We are aware, we can compute, we can perceive the multiple equilibria that are available, and we can actively choose to steer towards this or that. We don't do it by changing the environment but only by changing
our Initial conditions (our information, strategy, etc). So in effect we keep resetting the thermodynamic process every time we get new intel
interesting article here
http://evonomics.com/from-atoms-to-people-to-economies/ and its book which is in my to read list
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00TT1VLAO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1...But begetting information is not easy. Our universe struggles to do so. Our ability to beget information, and to produce the items, infrastructures, and institutions we associate with prosperity, requires us to battle the steady march toward disorder that characterizes our universe and which troubled Boltzmann. To battle disorder and allow information to grow, our universe has a few tricks up its sleeve. These tricks involve out-of-equilibrium systems, the accumulation of information in solids, and the ability of matter to compute. Together these three mechanisms contribute to the growth of information in small islands or pockets where information can grow and hide, like the pocket we call our planet.
So it is the accumulation of information and of our ability to process information that define an arrow of growth encompassing the physical, the biological, the social, and the economic, and which extends from the origin of the universe to our modern economy. It is the growth of information that unifies the emergence of life with the growth of economies, and the emergence of complexity with the origins of wealth...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cXe8w62_owhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuM-AtDjuxg