Skrum; you haven't really responded to my post. You just basically repeated your assertion that it is possible.

Once again; human beings aren't passive objects; they have emotions; can act irrationally; are adaptable to situations. This is clearly way more complex then a chemical reaction.

You also imply that the atoms of a chemical reaction cannot be tracked. This is demonstrably false and has been done before. Computers can not only track the atoms in a chemical reaction; but can predict the exact location and properties said atom during a chemical reaction with 100% certainty. All you need is two chemicals; a vacuum; and a computer hooked up to a microscope.

Perhaps maybe I am misunderstanding your approach; so please show me an example of this falsifiable approach to economics using a method that duplicates a natural science experiment precisely. Also; please state what is the fact that is proven from the experiment.

Btw; you talk about the recording of all transactions and then the ability to use that to know whether the person was acting rational or not. That is nuts!

What method are you using to detect with certainty the rationality of a random persons actions? Certainly; this is just a ridiculous assertion. Or perhaps you should unveil this GOD machine you have; we certainly need it.

Rational trading is based on the traders' expectations about whether the price of the security is going to go up or down, or on minimizing risk for a particular expected yield. For n securities, there is an n-1 dimensional space of points than can be occupied by rational traders (for multiple bond maturity dates, throw in an additional dimension for the yield curve). Irrational traders buy and sell based on an emotional attachment to the securities. They will occupy points off the rational curve. At least one paper in the U Iowa archives has dug into their data and the results show that funds tend to pass from irrational to rational traders.

I have answered your post. Economics is falsifiable.

For an economics/thermodynamics analogue model, try this:

http://www.df.uba.ar/users/giribet/f4/economic.pdf

Scrum; it is impossible to judge whether an action is rational or not using only knowledge of the result.

Citation?

The definition of rational is "having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense". (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational)

If it impossible to determine whether the action was "exercising reason" when you don't even know the reason for the action.

Actions have causes and effects. By definition; rationality deals with the cause of the action. You are only recording the effect.

I will put it into poker terms; seeing as we are all probably poker players. It is always rational to call an all-in pre-flop in a cash game if you are holding pocket aces; regardless of whether or not you end up losing.

actor*

Just like to point out that due to the quantum nature of atomic particles, we indeed cannot show and exact point that it exists, but we can give the probability that it will exist in a certain area. I'm talking about existing in our world, not in a vacuum.

That is all. You guys can get back to your semantics argument now.

Sorry, but that's not a foundation of your claim that you can't tell whether something is reasonable or not only from the result. It doesn't even have the word "result" in it. You are just reasserting your claim.

Nothing wrong with the definition. In particular, being irrational is not having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or common sense. How would you ascertain the nonexistence of a thing? By the results. If the existence of X implies Y, and Y doesn't result, you have to give up the hypothesis of the existence of X. That's how the scientific method works.

By your own definition, if you are found to have had pocket aces after your having not called an all-in, you have not acted rationally. We don't need to know what you were thinking.