- Topics started: 1
- Total posts: 8
JN—I sort of rejected reading your reply to a rejection because
1) it was 71 pages (someone ‘dogmatically’ into MMT rejected reading my 4 paragraph reply to one his posts on a ‘complexity science’ page because it was too long and his mind was decided that MMT was the best and only theory that makes sense) and
2) i noticed names like Althusser, Marx, etc. and i didnt want go down dome rabbit hole into a sectarian feud–also i never heard of that journal (it might be one i avoid)
but then i looked at it–just skimmed and mostly first 20 pages. its a very interesting paper. its the kind of thingi wouild read outside and may when i get a printer if i do. (i actually consider it ‘social physics’–and i actuually put Bourdieu and Foucault in that class , possibly derrida and lacan–i’ve obnly really read some of boudieue–others just skimmed – and then going way back (comte might be the easiest to classify but even he doesn’t fit into every box or solve every puzzle—thats the problem of quantum theory which has many names (spin, indistinguisable particles…) , kant , Berekely, etc. There is a physycist Y S Kim who has papers on Kant , taoism, Feynman and Eeinstein and a reactionary polish physicist also wrotes on related things. ).
I might have some terminology and conceptual differences (‘everything is finance’) but to me these are in a sense like the difference between a dollar and a euro or french and enliglish or quebecois .
For example about p 7-10 you go through 3 main ideas of marxists/neoclassical-liberals whic you say CASP disagrees with (and compare them to newtonian mechanics/flat earth theory etc.) To an extent i dont think anyone believed in those theories or social versions since 1880-1930. (Actually thats wrong –there are still economists, political thinkers and biologists , maybe a few physicists–who still believe in those. But i mostly dont read those–i have met some with those views. .)
There are for example even ENDOGENOUS SDGE models as you likely know. Very slight alterations of perterbations of old theories or equations lead to very different universes (you’ve pro ably seen in chaos theory the discrete logistic attractor–a fractal.)
(As an aside i think you meant Fourier Series not transform –but maybe ask someone who has taken calculus. If you meant transform then conceptually its harder for me to visualize or understand –one is like taking a rock apart into atoms or a sandwich into bread, lettuce and butter ; the other is like taking it through time —the entire history of very atom in the rock, or the entire supply chain making butter, lettuce, bread and then combining them–at least thats my intepretation.)
(as another aside since i’m someone somewhat into sapir-whorf idea it may be euros and dollars are fundamentally different even if exchangeable, and ‘a car ‘ in english is not the same as ‘le car’ in quevecois; same for ‘the car’ . Noam Chomsksy might have views on that–he’d say they are all different as is every car except original one which Plato keeps in his universe or shwoing room. )
I wouldnt say finance is everything except in the sense that in my view there is already an existing (somewhat obscure) physics theory (which i barely understand) which covers what you are doing.
More well known forms of the same theory (QFT and superstrings) which some believe predicts everything in the universe (though its not accepted and they cant prove it –i think they did try to predict something.) QFT does predict maybe 3/4ths of what is known (i’m not sure the economics version has been applied but the people who made it work in finance).
In this theory utils are quanta–and noone knows what they are (some say matter, or space, or just numbers , or just measurements ( the way iq is measured with iq tests —‘we measured the number 3 to be 3’)–or combinations of these. I saw a recent paper on this theme—claimed to derive all quantum theory from measurements. There are many on this theme–‘it for bit’ ( J Wheeler, Feynman’s prof).
SNALTs are what you use to combine the utils into a recipe —which you use to make things to sell—and get more utils (combined into products or money).
(in other words a diamond is a big Util made of subutils called carbon atoms–anyway thats my version–though it may be a different theory which is ok with me–i could myself be a casper the ghost. )
Just as you can start with finance or superstring theory and get everything else, you can start maybe everywhere and get superstring theory—another hobby of some physycists. To me its really a matter of conveniance or convention where you start. Its like climbing a mountain—there are lots of routes.