[ishi crew]

comments:

1.  i view the world including ‘political economy’  as basically an ecosystem.   as a result , most of it is basically or effectively as disconnected to me as a fish is as disconnected to a bird or tree.  this includes most academic papers and theories.

2. i glanced at maybe 10 academic economics papers today basically on variants of the theme of endogenous money.      i also looked at some biology and sociology papers, which to me were on same theme except in a different dialect (as distinct as swimming versus flying, but same concept—motion).

3.   i’ve read little minsky directly;   but one quote by him i saw was his opposition to a UBI—even hayek supported ubi.   while JG is fine, i have a ‘higher standard’ so it depends on the job.    i’d rather be paid to be an artist’s model than a prison guard or bouncer.    minsky said ubi is ‘inflationary’ but JG isn’t.  i don’t think that is really consistant.   collecting a ubi could be a job.    collecting ‘welfare’ of various kinds actually is a full time job in usa—and its just as bad a job as many others.

[ishi crew]

irving fisher was the student of gibbs—at the time considered the greatest american theoretical physicist.  he was also a student of sumner–a sociologist—hence ‘social physics’.

fisher (like s keen) also made a wrong prediction which cost him his reputation.  .

in my area people view children as resources  —investments in future or capital  —or as commodities and income–things you buy and use like pets or toys    until you want new and different ones.

[ishi crew]

JN–   very good and interesting review.

i was unfamiliar with the book by Harris.
the theme, often called ‘superintelligence’  (maybe a variant of the frankenstein/pandora’s box/old movies about automated factories   that take over control of their human employees  ) in modern form may originate in 1960’s with i. j. good (famous statistician).

i’d mention the films eraserhead (john waters), ‘metropolis’ (fritz lang) , and aguirre the wrath of god (herzog)  as other semi-fictional accounts of capitalist development — and also maybe Matewan  (film about a labor rebellion in coal country—w va.).

i might use different or alternative terminology or dialect a few places.

where you use ‘capital as power’ , i tend to call that evolution.      but you are basically dealing with modern finance capital and hence use terms from that field—

i view economics, politics, and modern ‘democratic capitalist ‘ societies as   ‘subsets’  or ‘social ecosystems’ within the evolutionary process.

eg the standard theory is you start with the ‘big bang’—–a radiation gas—-   and then the gas cools or evolves into particles, atoms, chemicals, genes, organisms, and collections of them (‘ecosystems’) and their productions  (memes, language, money, capital, property, books, art, machines-technology , religion, states …)
eg Big Bang-> USA +Trump

all the basic evolutionary laws of biology can be written as optimization principals (either maximum entropy or principal of least action).
The most classic one  ‘fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection’  (FFT)

something like d<w>/dt ~ var (w)         (where w is ‘fitness’ (eg profitability)
(i view that as an almost intuitive equation once you know the symbols).

fisher viewed as   analogous to 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy increases—as hot coffee cools) .
others viewed it as analogous to newton’s laws    (potential energy decreases  —a rock at top of hill falls down to lowest point).
nowadays in my view these 2 views are the same —they just use different boundary conditions and definitions.
i’m fairly sure many others agree—though you won’t hear this in undergrad physics classes.

FFT or variants is used by someone  in insititutional economics to deal with ‘survival of firms’.

———————–
(the fisher lectures at London Math Soc were renamed not long ago due to Fisher’s racist comments—- i didnt really know this history except i knew that fisher did  get paid to ‘prove’ that cigarette smoking was not related to lung cancer.)
————————

FFT is known to be wrong and likely was known to be when it was written down.
Its only true for the simplest case.
fitness= w = constant      –could be interpreted as ‘price=constant’   everywhere and at all times.

eg       ‘an aged wine’ had same price the day it was made.

old coins (i once had a nickel from  1800s and i got one at a coin show but did’nt pay for it )   always have same value                                                 —-  5 cent 1850 coin is worth 5 cents today.   ‘its common sense’.

I might similarily say ‘marginal utility  theory’ might sort of work for a barter economy based on hunting, gathering, simple ag and tech.
Current versions of FFT  while also derived from optimization principals have ‘many optima’ and also these change or evolve.
‘soon as you get to the highest mountain top you see a higher one,
and it maybe the small mountain you had to climb over to get where you are’.
.
———————-

The ‘newtonian particle’ view of humans interacting actually was foreign to me except historically
(maybe goes back to democritus;  first papers i read in econ journals were on ‘herding effects’  and role in financial crises,
racial segregation and class stratification, etc.
these are ‘modified newtonian particle ‘ theories.  now some people model ‘human atoms’ as quantum mechanical—
alot of it is ‘new agey mysticism’ but some is quite rigorous and doesn’t make ‘bold claims’.

the ‘cartesian’ view that one can seperate mind from matter, syntax from semantics (chomsky’s cartesian linguistics),
or even ideology from science , or ‘theory’ from ‘applications’ ,  i think went out around 1900 but it seems they rebury this view                          every 30-50-70-100-120 years.        (As soon as its buried , someone exhumates the theory.

I saw papers recently by a professor who is part of Chomsky’s empire  who exhumated ‘cartesian linguistics’.
He uses some sort of ‘mathematical theorem’     to basically promote the ‘beanbag cartesian linguistics program’
(the ‘theorem’ —‘on structural dependence’ — has been promoted by chomsky for decades, but he never defined it. )
The basic idea is children dont learn language by ‘learning’ it—-they just it get it from their beanbag or ‘meme bag’.
they differ in language because they have different memebags.

———————

(In biology the genetic equivalent is called ‘beanbag genetics’  (term atributed to Fisher) —
eg organisms including humans are just a random draw of  genes from a ‘genebag’.

there’s even a prominent ecological theory (came out of Yale) analagous to beanbag genetics—it could be called beanbag ecology.
to test it one could go to a zoo, open all the cages,   wait a few hours, and then come back and put all animals back in and close all the               cages.                   then you get new ecosystems.

human migration over eons has sort of done this experiment.

Nowadays it seems people can sort of buy and price genes —get better genebags.  Make new genes2.

govt to some extent can control borders and limit what is in genebags.

[ishi crew]

many econo-physicists hired by capitalists (‘quants’) simply couldn’t find academic jobs and didnt want to do fast food or uber. so they modeled some other time series.  they also learned money is more valuable than physics and love—which can be bought with money.

some academic econophysicists are sort of straight up leftists/even marxists in some sense –but get paid for physics.

some actually use it to do things like ‘optimize an electrical grid’ for electricity generation and distribution over time and space, when the grid has inputs from coal , nuclear, water power, solar and wind.

this way all the hooligians have their  preferred choice to get www and tv.

‘optimality principals ‘   are a game played by academics.
i was thinking of optimizing the english language.   26 letters i think is an optimum based on basic biology, and number theory.

one could get it down to 2 or 3 letters but then you live in a digital universe.

[ishi crew]

Thanks J Nitzan.  This was a clear response.

comments:

1. i think coupling a ‘fear index’ with a ‘PI ‘is a good idea–

my interpretation is this combines (mass) psychology with ‘measurable’ or ‘material’ things (eg labor time, products produced…).
but alot of these measurable things are only weakly connected to ‘value’ or ‘utility’ as commonly understood (and as casp seems to emphasize.)

also the ‘fear index’ is typically hierarchically produced.   not everyone in a company makes investment decisions.

2.   on optimality principles— i’m not a physicist but i studied theoretical biology.  its a sort of ‘game’ in these fields (and now all through psychology, sociology, economics …even pure math and cs)—to try to find ‘euler-lagrange equation’ (or Lagrangian) which is the ‘optimum principle’  for just about any system.  the equation   of m0tion is implicit.
you can fit any data set with the E-L form (its just nonlinear regresssion –curve fitting–in my view).

most people who do this agree that these are ad hoc.   it may or may  not have to do with causality.   you can optimize anything –who cares? so long as its ‘aesthetic’—-the dirac criterion for good science.

[ishi crew]

Since i  just sample casp writings, the  ‘casp stock market model’  i find clear though i hadnt heard of PI or HMM before , and the dynmaics of PI is basically a prediction  of the theory.
physics people would write differential equations for these and also derive them from an optimization  principal.    physicists don’t care if the theory is true typically–they just do the equation that summarizes it..

i wonder how this theory differs from Machover’s ‘law of decreasing labor content’ or whether its the same.

while as i understand it if i do, maybe CASP’S most distinctive feature may be its ‘post ante ‘ definition of captialization.   that is sort of new.  however i think both are needed, following modern physics.    formally   as i understand it,   in that field causality goes in all directions.

[ishi crew]

I view Pigou and Coase ‘taxes’ or ‘theorems’ as ‘duals’.   They are  equivalent ‘in the limit’.

Pigou says ‘polluter pays’ up front.   Polluting is defined by ‘expert scientists’ and made illegal and offenders have to pay criminal fines.

Coates ‘theorem’ says same thing except you have to hire a lawyer to make your case that someone harmed you by ‘polluting’.
You have to do your own research to make the case, or hire scientific experts, and also hire a legal team.

The Pigou approach has the law already in place; Coates approach says you have to make the law.

Coates is the ‘law and economics ‘ approach.

i recently heard a radio talk by Deirdre McClosky—porfessor emereti at U Iowa — i think she may have been a student of M Friedman and has an interesting history.   She takes the Coates approach except she also says things like ‘i like the fact that i don’t have to sue my doctor, pharmacist, or drug company–and do my own research and hire a legal team –everytime i get sick off my prescriptions’.

[ishi crew]

AAAS (which publishes Science mag) is asking members to ‘sign a pledge’ to ‘Trust in Science’ .

Its purpose is basically to promote more govt spending for sceince.

One reason they give is science and scientific experts improve the lives of all humans.

There was some pushback from what could basically  be called both ‘right wing and left wing’ AAAS members.

‘Differential accumulation’ applies in science as everywhere else.

Not ‘all boats rise together’ at the same rate.

In  ‘law’,  ‘law and economics’ (which is typically viewed as a right wing school associated with GMU) (some have a different name) has a ‘left’ dual called CLT/CRT (critical legal /race theory).  The right wing group focuses on ‘efficiency’, the other on ‘justice’.

Science actually theoretically focuses on efficiency–also called optimality or ‘path of least action’. (A few papers try to rewrite  US constitution in terms of  in math language of optimization.).   But science knows that ‘justice’ is not ‘just us’, and ‘just us’ is inefficient.

AAAS forum sort of shut down their free and open debate about ‘truth’ and ‘justice’.

I agree with J Nitzan that there is no or little hope for any resolution to these debates between corporate  (including ‘nonprofits’ like AAAS) and stakeholders or members’ interests.

[ishi crew]

“capital’s power  is  fractal in nature’.

to me that may summarzie the entire issue.   ‘eureka—all problems solved with one formula’

(my view is the formula and variants actually has been known a long time under many different names .)

just saying that should get you 2 PhDs and tenure in depts of (neoclassical) econ and political  econ0my (casp)  .

i’d even say the same for every other U dept—
(every phd test has the same questions answered by ‘fractal’ )—–
just  different words for fractals and related math objects—‘real or nominal, or neither n/or both’.

people are basically living in a tower of babel speaking lanaguages as mutually unintillegible  as tree language and mountain language  and few realize they have them.

its sort of like the current and forever mideast conflicts.

all the langauges have power—but somewaht different.
‘sapir whorf’ pcp.

———
math people i think are still undecided   on really how to describe fractals (similar to defining capital).

the descriptions do become like river valleys and watersheds populated by different competing and warring tribes flowing into  different oceans .

————-

this is my basic view or theory  and i  wonder to what extent anyone else thinks it is similar or related to their view.

also i’m theoretically big into applications—-eg turning nominal things into reality—eg go from e = mc2 to a bomb you can sell or use.

i wonder what application exist for CASP   ( neoclassical econ has many, often trivial but pay bills; and somec  astill create variants hpoping to be the next einstein, walras, arrow, samuelson, arthur, etc.).

most casp appluicatiomns to me look like data collection and regressions—-cuve fitting—what biologists except  a few primarily did up to 1970’s.
biotech people still do this.    the real cuurrent theory looks the fringes of phyics/math/logic—as does some recent econ theory—some of whose ideas are used in casp as analogies (and much bioology theory began with analogies.

(in a sense the applications that interest me are related to ideas like anarcho-communism or related variants–libertarian socialism, green politics…

people i know or knew into those view their application as getting tenure ,selling books,    or status—power   .
thats sort of what i want to  but maybe a different kind of power for people , crew, tribes or species with my religion  ‘ishi crew’.
ishi is on wikipedia.     in a sense there may never be a universal theory  beyond the phrase.  get particular quicvkly.

(i havent been able to sell many equations—i actually tried for awhile on street along with music—right/left brain recipe.)
‘whole food for a whole person’.   so my applications are near zero —ajnd maybe there wont be any, or no0ty until someone invents a new kind of fire, water,  internet , or a-life—one with super powers able to makew super/in/stit(ut)ions

i likely should have stuck with even though i made very little cash.  you go for more cash doing something you dont really like for me was a recipe for failure.
but some people get alot of success using that approach if they can play the market well—-it may be in large part a zero  sum game —–
for which i think there is a technical term   and related to fractals , physics and numbers.

this is sort of what i work on but doing it alone for free isn’t much fun.   all the people i come across doing related things basically are happy either alone or else with people they know doing what they basically already do (or practicing their own religious faith)—probably wise.   a cat can’t learn a fish’s tricks for life under water  easily.
(i wonder if 1 air = 2 waters? have to do the chemistry).

[ishi crew]

There is a film called ‘the treasure of the sierra madre’ starring humphrey bogart from long ago.  (I had relatives who were somehwat familiar with ‘sierra madre’ in  Mexico and up through Texas.

If i recall correctly it has a scene with 2 people in Mexican desert–gold prospectors—one found and has  gold, the other has water.    They are walking north to Texas (and i’ve done a similar walk a few times and i’ve seen old , sometimes still semi-active gold mines from mexico through california to alaska) .

There is very little water in those deserts and you have to know where to go.   (I could figure it out —find some water every 5-20 miles–springs from the desert mountains— or plants.   )

Off and on, the two people make a deal or market transaction.  The person with  water sells it for gold to the other person who  is thirsty.

Then a few hours later they make the opposite deal–the person who now has the gold  says he is thirsty, and the gold is too heavy, so he buys the water; and so on.   The movie may end unhappily–i forget–i was maybe 6 when i saw it.   The ‘nominal’ (gold)   ended up abandoned in the desert, and the ‘real’ (water) was all gone –drunk , or  spilled and evaporated.

Alot of people down there were bounded by but to a large extent not part of the ‘finance economy’–they grew their own food, found wild fruits and some fish,  made their own clothes etc.
They had some market transactions and cash—but sometimes not really welcome.
People wanted them to do ‘agricultural work for cash’–ranging from growing vegetables for export to opium , ‘tourism’, smuggling, and become part of consumer society–build roads, make little stores that sold coca-cola and food imported from USA, and cut down the remaining small beautiful forests to sell the timber.

[ishi crew]

“Building Birdges’.

Some scientists have these artificial distinctions between ‘living matter’ (or organic carbon  based life ) and inorganic ‘nonliving matter’.
I view it as a disticniton analogous to that between real and fictitious capital.

This was back in Marx’s days
(when they still beleived in ‘alienated  labor’  and that there was a ‘war of the wor(l)ds between capital, space aliens  (with no valid IDs–‘go back to your own plan it Idaho) ,  economics, and power.)

Since the days of feudalism, barbarism, socialism, and capitalism are past,
the current issue is  A-life—‘artificial life’–silicon (valley) based life.

Most people now discuss the ethics of AI and a-life.

Luddites are against the a-life.  They say robots will replace us.

Moderates or reformists are ok with some a-life via MMT (modern monetary theory) and using ‘energy’ as a metric for GDP– ‘eg ‘biophyisical perspectives   on economics–keen, ayres, constanza, fix, daly,  ‘dalies’, ‘qalies’, ‘utils’  ..)

Moderates prefer a circular  economy.
They see a peaceful coexistence between a-life robot ATM machines which convert clean solar energy into $  (or capital) while the old fashioned carbon based life just takes withdrawals from the ATMs and recycles it .

Pacifica (‘peace’)radio (   https://wpfwfm.org ) has a show called ‘building bridges’ (the last one is in their archives–tuesday may 10)  .

(I used to got some of their  local  ‘community supported radio’ meetings until people started fighting  and calling police on each other).

Its an interview with harry belafonte (now 94) –famous entertainer–who talks about a catpialism,  and its relationship with the entertainment business (film, music, etc.)
He’s a member of a union , and is worth 28 million$.  He also says 80% of the union members are unemployed.
He also says he hit the jackpot but most don’t.

One local radio station  has the motto ‘information is power’.

 

[ishi crew]

Jeremy Zerbe —

I listened to part of one of McCarraher’s podcast.  I basically agree with him but arrive at similar views  from a non-religious perspective.
I read one book he mentioned— ‘small is beautiful’ by Schumaker.  I think that book sort of is one major source of current ecological type movements–as is Thoreau centuries before.
My views are closer to Thoreau updated with modern science.

My parents used to get Harper’s which Lapham edited for quite awhile so I used to read it and am familiar with him

(It  has an interesting history— got into some controversy around 2006 when it published some ‘AIDS denialists’  including a then respected mathematical biologist—-ie said there was no AIDS virus.     The math biologist later sort of dropped out of science and became  associated with a far right wing group.     Most people said this group of denialists who advised that people not use condoms, etc. was basically an anti-gay and anti-African group–South Africa at the time was sort of the epicenter of AIDS.
There are similar groups today regarding COVID–generally religious fundamentalists, conspiracy theorists, Trump supporters  etc.
Harper’s got into another controversy recently for publishing an article on academic freedom which some took to basically be a defense of alot of sort of ‘right wing’ and ‘socially conservative’ professors (eg people who are against recognition of ‘transgenders’) , though a few moderates and leftists also signed.
Chomsky I think signed  –he also supported in the past non-censorship of holocaust deniers.
I’m also for free speech but likely wouldnt sign any letter with or promote the views of people I disagree with on certain things.
They can write their own letters and books.)

I sort of think you can come to any conclusion starting from just about any point of view—CASP, neoclassical economics, religion, science, etc.

This is why I disagree with some views of CASP and Blair Fix.  They misrepresent in  my view some views of Marx and what they call ‘neoclassical’ or ‘mainstream’ economics.

My view of Marxism and neo/classical  or ‘liberal’ economics  is its flaws are primarily because it originated decades or centuries ago.
The views of the originators of modern science in same period  can be criticized for the same reason.

One can’t criticize Darwin because he didn’t know what DNA was , or  Marx and the originators of marginal utility theory because they  didn’t know about ‘algorithmic trading’, supercomputers , hedge funds , ‘physics of finance’, or anthropogenic global warming.
Even today noone really knows the significance of these modern developments.

That you can arrive at different conclusios from same position is also  true in music—it used to be some ‘radical’ music forms such as rap/hip hop and punk were seen as ‘left’ / anarchist / revolutionary /anti-religion etc.   But later one had a whole set of right wing / religious /fascist rap and punk bands .

Science including economics is not a monolith.   Often there are ‘majority opinions’ but I don’t think these are as uniform as some beleieve.

It is true that the majority beliefs are what get presented in college textbooks as the orthodoxy.

In Catholocism and protestantism and Islam  there is are orthodoxies  but there are also plenty of ‘believers’ who disagree with them .
Feuds between factions in  religion, science and economics to me are similar.

I sort of have given up on calling myself any sort of scientist or mathematician (and besides am not employed as one) , and to an extent say as some in CASP say about economics ‘who needs math and science if this is what math and science people do’?
So instead ‘political science fiction’, ‘free math’,  ‘ir/rational un/natural philosophy’ , or ‘stochasticism’ is  more what i do.

[ishi crew]

I  read the essay quickly.

It was very thought provoking and well written but not in my dialect.

(I used to formally study theoretical biology and ecology and would go on trips with people out into ‘natural ecosystems’ with often ‘spiritual’ ecology types.
I would be talking about the various floras and faunas, the dynamics of ecosystems and they’d say that’s reductionist and materialistic, and instead talk about the various ‘spirits’ that lived in these areas they learned from some ‘sacred text’–they said book learning obscured reality except the one they read.
My view was we spoke different dialects and the floras and faunas also had different ones. )

Of the paper, I mostly agree with what i understood but think it mostly overlaps with things that have been said before in other dialects.

I am biased so I think pretty much all future ‘scientific (‘type’) research’ will be at least partly mathematical.
(Its  also seems true that much applied math research to social/economic /environmental problems seems  irrelevant.
Quite a few poeple get paid to study gun violence in USA universities with math methods while there are homicides occuring a few blocks away.
They seem to think they can   put their academic paper on the web and this will solve these.)

This article mentions ‘distortions’ (CASP uses ‘imperfections’) ,  as things economists use to fix up flawed theories.

All the sciences i’ve studied use these to ‘fix up’ theories which are ‘imperfect’.

People switch from saying the universe is made of perfectly round infinitely  small billiard ball atoms (or, say genes) which interact with ‘perfect rationality or information’ and then settle into ‘equilibrium’ configurations, to saying these atoms or genes actually are distorted or imperfect, and don’t settle to equilibirium because they are stuck in metastable nonequilibrium semio-optimal configurations.  The genes are less fit than predicted.

I think CASP writers tend to overplay the successes of fields like physics and biology. For decades and even a century or more those fields have introduced distortions and imperfections—eg curved (relativistic) and quantized space, imperfect information (special relativity)  gene-environment interactions, etc.

Most physics and biology deals with (like  in economics  standard  individual budgeting theory or in macro IS-LM) things they can solve.

‘You need a genetic cure? we got it’  .   You need a faster computer? we got one.  Need a drug cure? problem solved.
Like for some economists, they claim they will solve all problems. .

The Human Genome sequencing project suggested it would solve all health problems.   They got billions$ funding , sequenced the human genome, but some say health is still a problem.    Some scientists agreed they didn’t know what a gene was even though they found all of them.

If you look at the more theoretical papers in  fields like biology and physics –and psychology—(the minority by far–i might guess 1% compared to applications to problems they can solve) you will find that basic things in physics like ‘mass’, ‘charge’ ‘spin’, and ‘inertia’ , or in biology things like ‘fitness’ , or psychology ‘mental health’ , basically noone knows what they are , and there many theories.

There are ‘holdouts’ –say they know the answer—in economics to me Mankiw might be the best example.

(There’s a very recent youtube debate with Mankiw versus some ‘heterodox or keynsian  economists’ criticizing his textbook.

His basic view is it ‘represents the consensus scientific opinon’ based on the fact its had 24 million $ in sales and he’s a Harvard professor.)

I don’t think the heterodox economists (nor the ones in other fields) really have a competetive paradigm, scientific theory  or religion at this point.

Many people might try to decide ‘to maximize my utility, or subjective  (fame, acclaim and popularity) and objective value (measured in prize money ) , should I try for the real fake Econ Noble (1 M$) or the CASP prize of 1G?
You might have to spend a year working for it–thinking, writing, working to hire some grad students to write your paper, etc.   –and then decide if maybe it would be better to just play the lottery of life?

One could do an RCT–randomly controlled trial.    Take several people  who each choose a different approach and see what their net value is after a year.  It could be a factorial trial.

which factors lead people to rise or fall in the hierarchy?  or which small trees grow into big ones and which don’t?

[ishi crew]

Comments:

1. Last i looked, the  ‘Autonomous Zone of Rojava’ (which was app0arently partly inspired by Bookchin’s ‘ecology of freedom’ and popular with some ‘social anarchists’ such as   David Graeber  (‘rip’)) is almost history.

I sort of figured it wouldn’t last—sandwiched by or around syria, turkey, iraq, iran, russia…    Do people actually think a few western ‘radical journalists’ can visit some relatively small place sitting on top of or nearby alot of oil and spread its ‘ecology of freedom’ to the rest of the globe with a few articles?

2. The author of this long book apparently was persecuted.  A few people like me only read long books for entertainment. They are things to read outside like a novel. Its probably an interesting book.

3,   My view is all economics and politics (and everything else—eg sciences and arts) can be summarized in a few equations derived from Farjoun and Machover’s long book ‘laws of chaos’ and arrow and debreu’s , etc. papers on ‘general equilbirium’.  (arts such as music might require a little more than just equations but not much).

The long books are like ancient discussions of the ‘ether, fire, air, water and rocks’–or whatever ‘elements’ they had before modern physics.

Its probably possible to display a rigorous  mathematical  ismorphism between capital, power, capitalism, economy, the state, etc. and fire, water air and rocks.  If you add ‘god and spirit’ then you need the ‘ether’.

(I have seen a few technical papers written by physicists which do this–but they do it partly as an an ‘inside  joke’.   Even Godel proved god existed as an ‘ultrafilter’ (math term). )

Modern physics formalism summarizes  all of plato, adam smith, hegel, marx, heidegger, kropotkin, bakunin and all the rest in a few lines.

(Its better termed metaphysics    –i.e. doesnt try to compute the hydrogen atom spectrum to the Billionth decimal place— which seemed to still be an ‘exciting topic of research’ up till a few years ago last i looked.  You can let lawyers do the calculations–eg at the Hague ICC.

I actually prefer term   ‘stochastic’ (reminiscent of ‘caustic’ –see ‘eikonal equation’–used by Schrodinger to derive his equation–and even sarcastic).

4.   My answer to the question posed in the last sentence of the abstract above is ‘religion’.

People find value and comfort and power in religion and some turn it into forms of capital. Since orthodox economics has the real fake noble prize in econ maybe casp can have the one in religion or powernomics.
In fact i’d endow the prize so people can collect 1 M$ each—i just need to win many of them and i can give away 1% to all who  show merit

My ‘great country’ has ‘in  god we trust’ on our dollar bill. (Discussed in detail in the yotube video C.R.E.A.M. by Wu Tang Clan ).  I USA the dollar as is the holy holy trinity–me myself and i.

[ishi crew]

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.

[Author]

Replies