I think it is a fair point to make that economics relies a fair bit on the concept of the equilibrium, a fact that may be historically grown. Equilibria and how

I think it is a fair point to make that economics relies a fair bit on the concept of the equilibrium, a fact that may be historically grown. Equilibria and how they arise were discussed long before the concept was formalized. On the other hand, at least in describing macro-system, one was interested to find simplified analogies to physical systems. Yet, equilibria also arise from the behavioral assumptions we place on micro-behavior. As such, I think it is difficult to give only one reason as to why equilibria are used so often. At the very least, each econ model needs to content with the question whether the equilibrium of the system is a relevant concept to analyse. What I think is not fair assertion, and the article is especially full of hype, is that there has no reflection. Herbert Simon introduced bounded rationality in 1947 or earlier. This is the conception of when agents may not act rational (ie. collectively seek equilibria) because they do not understand the game sufficiently. This is not far later in time from when the equilbrium, as we know it today, emerged in the literature. The article presents a narrative where economists do not understand these bounds, and the authors are the first to do experiments on whether people find equilibria, when in truth this has been going on almost since Nash. The whole field of behavioral economics exists... More intricate formal equilibria concepts, as opposed to behavioral and experimental analysis, have not been en-vogue since the 1980s! Similarly, the (formal) question whether behavior of agents can converge to an equilibrium, whether it is unique, and how fast this happens, is intimately related to the whole literature. The exact question of myopic best replies, for example, was certainly formally tackled in the 80's, (Milgrom and Roberts, I think), if not before. At the very least, it seems that the article was not peer reviewed sufficiently. But this is very common with econophysics. Their solution, however, to get rid of strategic interaction and instead consider people as myopic, non strategic particle-like beings to be described by complex, yet non-interdependent functions, has to this day not yielded any appreciable advances in understanding economic issues - at least in the micro field. In contrast, game theory, mechanism design and auction theory have been tremendously successful in describing certain interactions. At least they are what drivers much of the online business today, as one example. The key is, by the way, not only how well people understand the game, but also whether the interaction is indeed anonymous or more socially complex. But again, this is old news.