FOR THE SUBJECT MATTER, OF ECONOMICS THE FUTURE DETERMINES THE PRESENT (people plans determine what they do now)? FOR PHYSICS THE PRESENT DETERMINES THE FUTURE (where the particle is at present determi,es where it is going to be in the future? --- Ken Hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But isnt the whole idea weird? Whether physics took > atoms as units of > explanation, or their constituents either way it > would surely contradict > the weird egoism with its attendant self of > traditional economics. > Explanation is not psychological in physics. If > physics is correct the > movement of the atomic individual towards the > refrigerator is not caused by > some desire to maximise its utility function by > getting food but must be > explained ultimately by physical reactions of the > atoms in the atomic > individual. Furthermore, physics does not use its > models as some type of > ideal to be imitated by policy. Physicists dont > suggest we ought to have > frictionless planes, or that we ought to release > objects in vacuums etc. Or > suggest that we somehow should change the world when > it is found that > objects on actual planes dont act as on frictionless > planes. And if the idea > is just that u start with individual units and > explain everything in terms > of them why take the individual units as atomic > individuals rather than > collectivities such as crowds. Do a Platonic > individualism!. > Isnt part of the idea of the comparison with > physics to snow people into > thinking that economics is a "hard" science, not > some soft muddy field like > sociology? The only legitimate part of the > comparison is that in some broad > sense both explain the "more general" in terms of > the interactions of the > "individual" units. > He he..a good pun Atom Smith... > > Cheers, Ken Hanly > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 12:04 AM > Subject: [PEN-L:20315] Physics and economics > > > > For 2 centuries, economists have attempted to > emulate physics as > > a justification for their individualistic model of > the world, > > following Atom Smith. This article says that > solid state > > physicists are pushing a different fundamental > view of the world > > based on complex processes. > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/04/science/physical/04SQUA.html > > > > -- > > > > Michael Perelman > > Economics Department > > California State University > > Chico, CA 95929 > > > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com
