Current economics divorced from physics, unscientific.

Econophysics:

Mises didn't realize that logic is NOT apriori to observation,

Yes, it is.

Econophysics:

that logic is a function, that is the act of functioning, period.

What does this even mean?

Econophysics:

That is where mises went wrong, logic is both and object AND a function at the same time.

Logic is not an object. What are you talking about?

Econophysics:

Do we exist?  The only way we could answer that question (yes or no) is if  logic was self-recursive (it feeds back into itself, it is both an object and a function) so any act of observation (which is a function) is by definition pure logic.

Meaningless jibberish.

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

Econophysics:

Every act of thinking and observing is a logical function, you can't have as much as a single thought, seeing is looking, looking is detecting, and detecting is knowing, and knowing is understanding.

More jibberish.

Demonstrate it's gibberish, which words and which statements are incorrect, else you have no valid claim.  A claim to know the error, is a claim to show it, now cough it up.

That sure promises to get interesting.

Econophysics:

 "Boole's system (detailed in his 'An Investigation of the Laws of Thought, on Which Are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities', 1854) was based on a binary approach, processing only two objects - the yes-no, true-false, on-off, zero-one approach.

What is it precisely you're against? Subjective valuing? Why cannot every individual "pile of particles" make his zero-one approach towards what he needs and desires?

And how can one formula account for the needs and desires of every "pile of particles" since, as I pointed out two posts earlier, even if free will was  non-existent, determination would also occur through personal experience and we'd therefore have many individualized "piles of particles"?

That wasn't my point, my point was to show economics is filled with inconsistencies, contradictions and fallacies.  If you read my other posts, you know that I suggested we do experiments and do more research into how monetary flow behaves.

As to how "monetary flow behaves", I have a guess: Either it is being exchanged in mutually beneficial transactions or being voluntarily donated (free market, persuasion) or it is being taken by force (crime, government, coercion).

I guess, however, we have a more fundamental disagreement here; the contradictions and fallacies you talk about are probably connected with the way we treat property and property rights.

Most of it is being derived from the principle of self-ownership. You apparently don't accept this premise since for you, we are all made of particles that nobody can own because they have always been there, so we cannot own ourselves either. But if we do not own ourselves, who does? At the time you have written your arguments, you have obviously made use of "your" brain, "your" fingers, "your" eyes and maybe other parts of the "pile of particles" that is "your" body. But if you do not own yourself, who granted you the right to use these particles in the way you did? Maybe some alligator would have liked to digest these particles that belong to "your" body. Who should decide how to use "your" body if you do not own it, and nobody else can own it either? A catch-22.

If I'm wrong and you do accept self-ownership but no property rights, that'd be another story.

It's not a strawman. Austrian principles still borrow and use the lockean notion of property rights, i.e. I produce an item I own said item and I can exchange or charge other people said item a monetary value.  I assert that the invention of money and austrian conceptions of property as moral value are imperfect, and that we can demonstrate by thought experiments that they are, usiung logic and geometry.

You're doing exactly what you have criticized others for: you do not point out actual flaws, but merely refer to outside sources as explanations of your views.

Of course but people would be totally energy independent (i.e. no one no longer has to work for anyone else, a form of domination that comes from scarcity and the laws of geometry over a finite resource.

Sure, scarcity implies measures to distribute resources. Without scarcity, these measures would likely disappear. Until then, we need a system which closely resembles the fairest possible distribution of scarce resources. Right now, it is "self-ownership and its consequences" versus "formulae".

I don't need to define merit, consider the thought experiment:  We have a group of 30 people, a man who charges x or y for a widget he produces, gains profit not based entirely on merit but on population size.  Denying this leads us to contradiction, do you agree, yes or no?

Yes. But I don't see what's wrong with the guy in your thought experiment. If he sells 10 or 1000 or 100000 widgets for 1$, it's still the same widget; why is it "immoral" when he sells it a 100000 times, but not when he sells it only 10 times?

I assert that a productive person meeting demand, and gaining monetary value from that demand is flawed because of population geometry.  He can abuse the price mechanism to extract illegal value from the population, the concept of cosent is flawed, and starts to break down down because of geometry.

Now it's getting confusing. "Illegal value"? Why is it illegal as long as you have a mutually beneficial transaction? Why does consent break down with population geometry? If there are only 10 people, why is consent more "true" than with 10000 people around?

Nowhere did I advocate socialism, I'm not sure why you're bringing this up,

Socialism advocates the abolition of private property and so do you.

I said the invention of money as a store of value and a price mechanism is flawed, not that it is not useful or rational.  But as a store of value, their are two-way feedback effects that someone cannot avoid because of the nature of geometric exchange and movement of products between agents and actors.

What precisely do you consider flawed? Interest?

The problem here is schools with the most money would attract the best teachers, and the schools with the least money would have reduced quality, and no child chooses which school to go to, all of us remember being forced to go to school by our parents because it is required by law (at least it is here where I live)

Alternatively one could say that free market schools would be more likely to meet the demands of their customers and therefore, offer better learning and studying opportunities at the same price for their attendees than public schools which are getting more money by producing big problems that need to be fixed (with monetary aid, of course).

And yes, I also had the delightful experience of compulsory public schooling. That alone makes at least me believe in freedom of learning.

 

No it is not entirely meritorious, it is partially meritorious, consider AMD, AMD makes CPU's now if their competition makes better ones, they don't sell those CPU's, so the fact that people demand CPU's leaves AMD holding inventory they can't sell, and all of that productive value was wasted (market failure).

And because AMD wants to lose as little money as possible, they will try to reuse or sell the ingredients of their CPUs to build something which is actually being demanded (compare Rockefeller and byproducts of oil refining). All the while, customers paid a lower price because competition spurred creativity. I wouldn't call that a failure.

So yes population geometry proves that we have to try to siphon off exces profit and disperse it due to demand geometry.

As you always bring up your population geometry argument:

Would you consider it moral if person A, who has built a widget that sells fantastically, had to give lots of "excess profit money" to be redistributed to person B who does nothing all day? By force?

You may not like to hear it, but you basically advocate egalitarian social democracy in mathematical clothes.

Because every individuals action is two-way, it is not one way, each individual is an authoritarian, a dictator, when you set a price for a good or a service, you are dictating the terms of contract,

Of course you do, because if it wasn't for your labor, this specific good or service would not be available at all. And no availability is even worse than a high price.

and because human beings have short lives and asymmetric time constraints, they do not always have rational choices.

And because human beings have a lack of information and only very rough imaginations of what their fellow men desire, they do very rarely have rational choices as planners as well (even with formulae).

They are not analogies, they are facts, when you make a sandcastle, did you not reshape the sand?  Yes of course you did.

I rearranged it in a way that I find more desirable. That's what producing things is about.

But no man created matter and energy, so what gives man the right to own something he did not create, but rather only reshapes?  Why is ownership not flawed here?

Because the "creator", if there is one, has obviously left all this land to be settled. If he came back with the proof of being the creator and reclaimed it, that'd be fine. But just so long, we might take care of it.

On the rationality of ownership, or rather the irrationality of non-ownership, I wrote a few sentences above.

When we subjectively determine a value of money, we allow our thoughts to control our behavioural outputs, which are physical, so our thoughts, exist, and if they exist, and we can detect them, then they are made of energy, or would you like to deny this?

By itself, everything is energy, of course. But how does that damage the assumption that energy can and should be valued subjectively?

Profit is a form of private taxation, we're just exchanging taxes by force of government, by taxes through force of commodity (where the commodity is used as a mechanism of taxing other popualtions).

Profits are the result of voluntary, mutually beneficial transactions. If person A hires a hooker, you may not consider that to be a good deal or beneficial, but since you allegedly don't even own yourself, who are you to make judgements about someone else's evaluations?

Taxation, to the contrary, is taken by force.

The price mechanism is a doubled edged sword, just like the government can co-erce you via force to pay taxes, you can use commodities as a weapon.

And just like that, customers can use their spending power as a weapon against me. So I guess we'll have to find a mutually beneficial agreement?

We move from allowing any man to acquire infinite value, to basing how much one can profit over a given period of ones lifetime, i.e. we fix how much any one individual can own in terms of property and money from the moment they are born, and everything else is dispersed equally among the population.

Apart from the really bad incentive structure that would create:

If nobody can possible own anything because we are all made of particles, how can you demand particles to be redistributed in one way or another? You don't own them, leave the particles alone !

The people here have the false idea, that just because you produce something, you are entitled to earn infinite value, I assert that most people make decisions non-rationally and that just because someone chooses to buy your product, does not mean they are being rational.

Right, you assert. I assert that different individuals value things differently and thus, their decisions seem irrational to you.

By the way, you're not entitled to infinite value because you produce something. You're entitled to the goods (including money) and services others are willing to pay for it. If people are willing to pay infinite goods for yours, so be it.

No a tyrant is someone who takes more wealth then they need, and then uses that as a club against other people.

Most people here adhere to the non-aggression principle.

What is the free market, if not the most extreme form of democracy?  That can only lead to one place: Economic tyranny.  Plato realized this long ago.

Plato, mhhm. Wasn't that the guy who accused "the mob" of being gluttonous like cattle, and who therefore proposed a 1984-style caste society with no upwards mobility and a philosopher (like, uh, Plato) at the top? Oh, and didn't he assume you needed specific mathematical procedures to calculate the "right breeding"?

Yes, Plato sure has an unbiased view on personal liberty.

No man deserves to own the planet, no matter how productive he perceives he is,

That's an assertion of yours. It furthermore depends on whether existing property owners want to sell to him which is indeed not directly connected to how productive and wealthy he is.

Liberty is a two way street, if we choose freedom and non-interference as the core values of economy, then that will only lead to tyranny, plato recognized this long ago.

Your proposals: egalitarian redistribution schemes, price controls, tinkering with formulae. Maybe we'll see where this had led Europe's legendary social democracies in a few decades.

No, we invented mathematics to help us count things. Then, we expanded the uses from there. Of course, the more we tried to describe the universe, the more we approximated things. For instance, there are no perfect circles, so far as we can tell, nor squares nor even truly, absolutely straight lines. It's all just a simplified ideal of the universe. Squares don't actually exist. Even so simple a discipline as geometry describes something that isn't really there.

Eventually (particularly in physics) we started to try to figure things out we couldn't observe directly. So, we extrapolated from the math of the things we already knew. Of course, this only exacerbated the fact that math described things only in an ideal, rather than a real way. As time progressed, we developed new equipment that could perceive things (to some degree) we couldn't when we came up with our models. In many cases, these observations did not match the predictions of the models. Did we then discard the models? No, by then, mathematicians had taken over science, and so they demanded that our theories of the universe conformed to extant mathematical models. Thus, compensating BS like dark matter.

In any case, "spacetime" is just such a part of the error-laden extrapolation of mathematical "physics". As is the "curve of space" (what a hill of dung that is; it doesn't even make any sense). Your entire thesis rests in the deep-seated fear of humans (and the rest of the world, but particularly humans) as unpredictable and dangerous beings. You want to impose an easily comprehended theory on reality, particularly human behavior, because you feel out of control in your own life. How much easier it would be, if the minds of your fellow men could be revealed by a few physics equations. Alas, it is not so. The world is chaotic, and unpredictable, and none moreso, at least to an outside observer, than the self-willed human being.

So, wrap yourself in the security blanket of your little theory if you like, but you're not convincing anyone here, and you likely won't anywhere else either.

Econophysics:

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

Econophysics:

Every act of thinking and observing is a logical function, you can't have as much as a single thought, seeing is looking, looking is detecting, and detecting is knowing, and knowing is understanding.

More jibberish.

Demonstrate it's gibberish, which words and which statements are incorrect, else you have no valid claim.  A claim to know the error, is a claim to show it, now cough it up.

It's jibberish because it doesn't make any sense.

 

So let's see, the *** who was jabbering on about logic being universal etc. now claims it isn't prior to empirical observations? Well then, could you explain how empirical observations mean anything without causality, which must be assumed, without the law of non-contradiction, again which must be assumed and so on? Or are you just a loud moron who is clueless as to what a priori means in this context? Methinks you're the latter, econocrank.

-Jon

You can't even respond to him you stupid whelp. Why do you bother? To waste our time? Again, you'd be better off sticking to one-liners. Even that is a bit too much given the amount of real information you have to convey. Which is to say, none.

-Jon

There's really no point debating this guy.  He's not just deluded; he's intellectually dishonest, as I realized when he tried to use the example of a lawyer's bill as evidence of a problem with the concept of money.

waywardwayfarer:

There's really no point debating this guy.  He's not just deluded; he's intellectually dishonest, as I realized when he tried to use the example of a lawyer's bill as evidence of a problem with the concept of money.

He can't honestly be ignorant enough not to realize that the lawyer would be justified in charging him $500 for one hour's worth of work that he could only do in days (at best), so long as it was a voluntary transaction? I don't know. It's possible he's this economically ignorant. It's possible he doesn't see the value in the lawyer's years of training and experience, in the amount of time the lawyer can save him if he purchases the guy's services. Perhaps he's an ignorant socialist who believes "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." :D

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

waywardwayfarer:

There's really no point debating this guy.  He's not just deluded; he's intellectually dishonest, as I realized when he tried to use the example of a lawyer's bill as evidence of a problem with the concept of money.

He can't honestly be ignorant enough not to realize that the lawyer would be justified in charging him $500 for one hour's worth of work that he could only do in days (at best), so long as it was a voluntary transaction? I don't know. It's possible he's this economically ignorant. It's possible he doesn't see the value in the lawyer's years of training and experience, in the amount of time the lawyer can save him if he purchases the guy's services. Perhaps he's an ignorant socialist who believes "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." :D

I was thinking along the lines of his using an example that he has to know is heavily distorted by the force of the state rather than any supposed flaw in money itself.  The nature of the legal system and the sheer volume of arcane and arbitrary laws decreed by the state artificially increase the demand for legal expertise, while the state simultaneously constricts its supply by restricting who may practice.  He fails even as an empirical scientist, because he has deliberately chosen an example in which factors other than the one he wishes to prove quite obviously play a major role.  He might as well put a glass of iced tea in a blast furnace and then triumphantly declare that ice cubes don't cool beverages.

 

waywardwayfarer:

I was thinking along the lines of his using an example that he has to know is heavily distorted by the force of the state rather than any supposed flaw in money itself.  The nature of the legal system and the sheer volume of arcane and arbitrary laws decreed by the state artificially increase the demand for legal expertise, while the state simultaneously constricts its supply by restricting who may practice.  He fails even as an empirical scientist, because he has deliberately chosen an example in which factors other than the one he wishes to prove quite obviously play a major role.  He might as well put a glass of iced tea in a blast furnace and then triumphantly declare that ice cubes don't cool beverages.

Yes. There's that too. The profession of law is a coercive guild supported by the state. Artificial scarcity in legal services results in prices that are higher than would otherwise be the case in a free market. There's also that artificial increase in demand you mention.

Econophysics,

I think you have read too many books on quantum physics and not enough on economics. 

Econophysics = Ellsworth Toohey without the subtlety and cleverness.

Jon Irenicus:

Well then, could you explain how empirical observations mean anything without causality, which must be assumed, without the law of non-contradiction, again which must be assumed and so on?

-Jon

That's as straightforward as you can explain it, I guess.

On the other hand, I know a whole lot of people, that would get into self contradictory rubbish, that causality, the law of non-contradiction etc. are actually empirically proven:D Thats just to show how physics can seduce the mind, when you start having fun with it without enough philosophical background (or even simple - non philosophical - reflection)

No, we invented mathematics to help us count things

And things are objects, and objects are geometric shapes, so yes we invented mathematics to count distinct geometric objects that exist in the universe, also known as "things".  Here's the definition of thing for you.

thing (plural: things; diminutives: thingy / thingie, thingo [Aus])

1. That which is considered to exist as a separate entity, object, quality or concept.

Now answer these questions, a thing has existence, now things in order to exist must have structure by definition, and if it has structure, by the necessity of it existing, it has distinct geometric pattern by necessity.

Or would you care to deny that existents have structure in a partial or whole manner?

waywardwayfarer:

There's really no point debating this guy.  He's not just deluded; he's intellectually dishonest, as I realized when he tried to use the example of a lawyer's bill as evidence of a problem with the concept of money.

That's not what I said, I said our current form of money is flawed as a store of value.  That's different from what you are claiming.  A butter knife can be used to butter bread but it can also be used to hurt someone.  i.e. it's a doubled edged sword.  The flaw is in allowing fallible indivduals to set their own prices, I don't disagree with people setting prices, I claim that no price can be completely rational.  there is no guarantee that someone won't abuse the price mechanism and use it as a weapon against others who have less economic power and hence bargaining power then they do.  Google "financial warfare" and see how the monetary system can be abused if you don't believe me.

If I owned the world, and I charged you all the money you have so that you break even and never profit (just enough to exist), then technically I already own you even though it was a "Free" transaction.  The more actual land and resources one has, the more power one has, the more power, the more freedom.  Those who have less monetary / economic power (in terms of land, etc) by definition have less freedom because they literally, have less power and resources.  I exposed this flaw with one person owning the earth and charging everyone else.  Don't claim things I did not say.  I said we have to put limits on how much an individual can acquire in terms of property and the money supply.  Otherwise we're just fascists in sheeps clothing, i.e. we obscure  define the concept of liberty to mean something else that is not fascism when we talk about it, but in practice we'd be fascists in a different set of clothes.  Fascism doesn't require a government as we know it today.  Since all institutions are in their own right a governing body. Since businesses and corporations would become governments, if the government was they would be competitive defacto governments in their own right by definition having their own legal systems and having their own private armies/police forces.

My posts are being moderated and as long as they are being blocked so if I don't get to respond to your replies it's because someone has moderated that's why.  So if this is my last post you'll know why I haven't replied.

Let's look at some snippets so we can all see some of the serious problems:

 

Econophysics:

That's not what I said, I said our current form of money is flawed as a store of value.  That's different from what you are claiming.  A butter knife can be used to butter bread but it can also be used to hurt someone.  i.e. it's a doubled edged sword.  The flaw is in allowing fallible indivduals to set their own prices

There's such a thing as an infallible individual? What does this troll suggest, then?

 

Econophysics:

 I don't disagree with people setting prices, I claim that no price can be completely rational.

And here the troll creates a strawman.

 

Econophysics:

If I owned the world

One wonders how the troll could even accomplish that.

 

Econophysics:

The more actual land and resources one has, the more power one has, the more power, the more freedom.

Conflation of economic and political power.

 

Econophysics:

Those who have less monetary / economic power (in terms of land, etc) by definition have less freedom because they literally, have less power and reources.

This has been debunked so many times that it's a wonder it's still brought up. It's like the "2nd law of thermodynamics" argument against evolution: refuted to death.

 

Econophysics:

  I said we have to put limits on how much an individual can acquire in terms of property and the money supply.

And how does the troll suggest doing that without violating anyone's rights?

 

Econophysics:

My posts are being moderated and as long as they are being blocked so if I don't get to respond to your replies it's because someone has moderated that's why.  So if this is my last post you'll know why I haven't replied.

You're not being singled out. I checked and you don't appear to be on moderation. It's just that the spam filters delay posts sometimes. It can happen to anyone.

Do you not realize the evil corporations will dominate us all without the government that enables and subsidizes them protects us from them? Obviously you lack the unique insight into the nature of things econocrank has, and therefore cannot possibly see that we're all just a bunch of fascists and that he, in spite of over 2000 years of philosophy on the matter, has established the true nature of "freedom".

 

Econophysics:

Mises didn't realize that logic is NOT apriori to observation,

Yes, it is.

No it isn't  because logic IS the act of measurement AND comparison at the same time. Logic is an existence measuring function. i.e. when you see these words, you do ONE function that has all the operations embedded in the one function... Yes these words exist, and yes it is true these words exist, and yes these words are match a coherent pattern.  That is how complex logic is, Mises didn't realize that.  Mises didn't bother with the advancements in logic that have been going on for over a century when he wrote is works.  When you think a thought you are seeing and modifying your own thoughts (observing, detecting, and chaining your own thinking and modifying them).  

Econophysics:

that logic is a function, that is the act of functioning, period.

What does this even mean?

Logic cannot be apriori to observation because logic is the action of measurement and comparison. The action of observing (detecting and determining the existence of) and comparing,  Observation is the ability to detect and make comparisons, you can observe your own ideas if I tell you to visualize the number one: You are observing  your own thought!  The only way you could observe your own thought, is if logic IS an object-function.  It is both an object and a function at the same time, it exists in functional ring.

How do you create ideas?  The only way you could create new concepts is if logic itself is activity.  You can't do comparisons detect whether something exists and do comparisons, if logic is not a function. Is this different from that, etc.

Econophysics:

That is where mises went wrong, logic is both and object AND a function at the same time.

Logic is not an object. What are you talking about?

Does logic exist? Yes or no?  If yes then, then answer the question, if logic exists, then by definition it must belong to the set of existents, and existents are objects, but objects can also be both objects and functions, or simply object-functions.

Econophysics:

Do we exist?  The only way we could answer that question (yes or no) is if  logic was self-recursive (it feeds back into itself, it is both an object and a function) so any act of observation (which is a function) is by definition pure logic.

Meaningless jibberish.

Demonstrate which word or which statement contains an error please, otherwise you're claim to knowledge of it being "gibberish" is invalid.  Just answer the question: Is the act of observation the act of measurement?