For the last three decades, physicists have been moving beyond the boundaries of their discipline, using their methods to study various problems usually instigated by economists. This trend labeled ‘econophysics’ can be seen as a hybrid area of knowledge that exists between economics and physics. Econophysics did not spring from nowhere—the existing literature agrees that econophysics emerged in the 1990s and historical studies on the field mainly deal with what happened during that decade. This article aims at investigating what happened (...) before the 1990s by clarifying the epistemic background that might have paved the way to the emergence of econophysics. This historical exploration led me to highlight the active role played by the Santa Fe Institute by promoting interdisciplinary research on complexity in 1980s. Precisely, by defining three research themes on economic complexity, the SFI defined a research agenda and a way of extending physics\biology to economics. This article offers a possible archeology of econophysics to clarify what could have contributed to the development of a particular episteme in the 1980s easing the advent of econophysics in the 1990s. (shrink)

This article offers a contribution to the history of scientific ideas by proposing an epistemological argument supporting the assumption made by Miller whereby Niels Bohr has been influenced by cubism when he developed his non-intuitive complementarity principle. More specifically, this essay will identify the Bergsonian durée as the conceptual bridge between Metzinger and Bohr. Beyond this conceptual link between the painter and the physicist, this paper aims to emphasize the key role played by art in the development of human knowledge.

ABSTRACTThis paper seeks to ignite debate surrounding the computerization and change in organizing financial markets and, due to the emergence of trading algorithms, investigates those as disruptiv...

What is econophysics? What makes an econophysicist? Why are financial economists reluctant to use results from econophysics? Can we overcome disputes concerning hypotheses used in financial economics and that make no sense for econophysicists? How can we create a profitable dialogue betweenfinancial economists and econophysicists? How do we develop a common theoretical framework allowing the creation of more efficient models for the financial industry? This book moves beyond the disciplinary frontiers in order to initiate the development of a common theoretical (...) framework that makes sense for both traditionally trained financial economists and econophysicists. Unlike other publications dedicated to econophysics, this book is written by twofinancial economists and it situates econophysics in the evolution of financial economics. The major issues that concern the collaboration between the two fields are analyzed in detail. More specifically, this book explains the theoretical and methodological foundations of these two fields in anaccessible vocabulary providing the first extensive analytic comparison between models and results from both fields. The book also identifies the major conceptual gate-keepers that complicate dialogue between the two communities while it provides elements to overcome them. By mixing conceptual, historical, theoretical and formal arguments our analysis bridges the current deaf dialogue between financial economists and econophysicists. This book details the recent results in econophysics that bring it closer to financial economics. So doing, it identifies what remainsto be done for econophysicists to contribute significantly to financial economics. Beyond the clarification of the current situation, this book also proposes a generic model compatible with the two fields, defining minimal conditions for common models. Finally, this book provides a research agendafor a more fruitful collaboration between econophysicists and financial economists, creating new research opportunities. In this perspective, it lays the foundations for common theoretical framework and models. (shrink)