tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post936992356485470159..comments2023-06-18T01:25:08.748-07:00Comments on Information Transfer Economics: The mathematics is not the issue here, DudeJason Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-43120528957707931062016-04-12T23:31:17.754-07:002016-04-12T23:31:17.754-07:00"Ephemeral = 60+ years?
How about 200+ years..."Ephemeral = 60+ years?<br /><br />How about 200+ years?"<br /><br />Let's not quibble - let's call it an eon - by then we will all have been fated to heat death.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-91862692355168405542016-04-12T16:08:10.868-07:002016-04-12T16:08:10.868-07:00"while social phenomena are ephemeral"
...<i>"while social phenomena are ephemeral"</i><br /><br />Ha! I dare you to support that with evidence.<br /><br />People always say that kind of stuff to sound "<a href="http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2016/03/economics-is-social-science.html" rel="nofollow">very serious</a>". But there are a lot of very well established regularities in economics. For example Okun's law. And here's some evidence that you're mistaken:<br /><br /><a href="http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-quantity-theory-of-labor-and-capital.html" rel="nofollow">http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-quantity-theory-of-labor-and-capital.html</a><br /><br />Ephemeral = 60+ years?<br /><br />How about <a href="http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-us-economy-1798-to-present.html" rel="nofollow">200+ years</a>?Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-22141580103320016462016-04-12T15:57:21.742-07:002016-04-12T15:57:21.742-07:00"At least astrologers were able to accurately..."At least astrologers were able to accurately time the movements of the heavenly bodies."<br /><br />And of course this highlights the fundamental difference between the natural sciences and the social sciences - natural phenomena can be understood and predicted by the application of unchanging laws (well more or less) while social phenomena are ephemeral. Physicists and mathematicians and most modern economists fail to understand this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-38640676983024571282016-04-12T15:52:33.483-07:002016-04-12T15:52:33.483-07:00"On comparing economics to astrology"
A..."On comparing economics to astrology"<br /><br />At least astrologers were able to accurately time the movements of the heavenly bodies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-88718558872236648632016-04-12T13:24:19.699-07:002016-04-12T13:24:19.699-07:00"In other the words the mathematics did not i..."In other the words the mathematics did not inform [Einstein's] conceptualization of the application of relativity to gravity."<br /><br />Even though Einstein said it did.<br /><br />Have you seen <i><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE" rel="nofollow">Annie Hall</a></i>?Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-62583424281813189442016-04-12T01:46:00.934-07:002016-04-12T01:46:00.934-07:00Incidentally, whether that is good or bad is for y...Incidentally, whether that is good or bad is for you to decide.<br /><br />B.L. ZebubAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-30541514993248879912016-04-12T01:43:57.946-07:002016-04-12T01:43:57.946-07:00@Jason (April 9, 2016 at 8:53 PM)
I don't wan...@Jason (April 9, 2016 at 8:53 PM)<br /><br />I don't want to put my ideas in your head, but I suspect by now this will not surprise you: to me, Lawson's position is utterly nihilistic.<br /><br />In other words, his criticism of maths in economics is way more radical than Levinovitz's. That's the comparison one needs to put Levinovitz in perspective.<br /><br />B.L. ZebubAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-24506099502019503262016-04-11T08:40:15.587-07:002016-04-11T08:40:15.587-07:00Ha! That's a good one!Ha! That's a good one!Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-71803273112590938532016-04-10T18:49:22.068-07:002016-04-10T18:49:22.068-07:00I like Kenneth Boulding's quip:
"Mathema...I like Kenneth Boulding's quip:<br /><br />"Mathematics brought rigor to economics. Unfortunately it also brought mortis."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-28624871250564614262016-04-10T10:57:30.717-07:002016-04-10T10:57:30.717-07:00BTW, I mean that inhaling poisonous gases probably...BTW, I mean that inhaling poisonous gases probably impaired Newton's health, not that belief in alchemy did so. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-85822636049779939362016-04-10T10:54:49.469-07:002016-04-10T10:54:49.469-07:00On comparing economics to astrology
I have reluct...On comparing economics to astrology<br /><br />I have reluctantly come to the view that economics is roughly at the stage of premodern science, or scholasticism. It has its Brahes but no Keplers yet, no Galileos, no Newtons. That does not mean that it is unscientific, but it is only weakly empirical. And, from what I hear, it has become less empirical since the mid 20th century, and at the same time has become more mathematical. Whether the math is a cover for the lack of empirical rigor I don't know.<br /><br />In the pre-modern period European university students studied astrology. Even Newton did not renounce it, and he pursued alchemy, probably to the point that it impaired both his physical and mental health. Astrology was not regarded as it is today, nor was it simply fortune telling. It was used to organize a good bit of knowledge, not just astronomy but medicine, biology, psychology, and social and political knowledge, adn probably other fields besides. So to compare economics to astrology in historical context, as the article does, is not as demeaning as it might seem. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-57534229138438251252016-04-09T20:53:47.093-07:002016-04-09T20:53:47.093-07:00I had to take some time to unscramble exactly what...I had to take some time to unscramble exactly what was being said in that paper. In the introduction, (almost) every new concept is given a new term that doesn't have its usual definition.<br /><br /><i>The specific conditions required for the sorts of mathematical methods that economists continually wield to be generally applicable, I have shown, are a ubiquity of (deterministic or stochastic) closed systems. A closed system is simply one in which an event regularity occurs. ...<br /><br />Employing the term deductivism to denote the thesis that closed systems are essential to social scientific explanation (whether the event regularities, correlations, uniformities, laws, etc., are either a prior constructions or a posterior observations), I conclude that the fundamental source of the discipline’s numerous, widespread and long lived problems and failings is precisely the emphasis placed upon forms of mathematical deductivist reasoning.</i><br /><br /><b>Deductivism</b> (here) = systems with event regularities are essential to social scientific explanation<br /><b>Deductivism</b> (elsewhere) = inference from true premises does not lead to false conclusions<br /><br /><b>Closed system</b> (here) = system where an event regularity occurs<br /><b>Closed system</b> (elsewhere) = a system that does not allow transfers in or out of the system <br /><br />In reality, "closed system" is closer to Hume's idea of the uniformity of nature (I have no idea because "event regularity" is never defined), which is something you have to accept if you want to employ any kind of scientific inductive reasoning from a few observations.<br /><br />But after reading and re-reading the introduction, I gathered Lawson's thesis is that the fundamental source of economics' problems is its emphasis on using math to describe things that regularly happen.<br /><br />The possible solutions to this seem to be that economists should either 1) tackle things that never happen the same way (how could you possibly do this?) or 2) not use math for things that regularly happen (even though it was invented precisely for this purpose).<br /><br />Later on, Lawson says:<br /><br /><i>... doctrine that all serious economics must take the form of mathematical modelling [pervades economics].</i><br /><br />The thing is, everything we observe as an economic fact is a number. Interest rates, unemployment rates, prices, inflation, recessions (changes in numbers). What are you going to talk about in economics if you're not going to refer to these numbers? Who does this? And why shouldn't you, as a general rule, use mathematics to talk about numbers?Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-21590283643629078182016-04-08T23:58:43.969-07:002016-04-08T23:58:43.969-07:00Jason,
Let me first say that I sympathize with yo...Jason,<br /><br />Let me first say that I sympathize with your position. I do believe maths is necessary in economics. By itself it doesn't make economics "scientific", but it does help clarifying ideas. This advantage, however, comes at a cost: to understand economics, now it's necessary to understand maths.<br /><br />With that out of the way: this subject of maths in economics is rather complex and full of nuances. To make things worse, often the critics of maths in economics choose unclear language.<br /><br />The Aeon article -- in my opinion -- contains only a mild criticism of maths in economics. Granted, comparing economics with astrology (Chinese or otherwise) was provocative and this may suggest Alan Jay Levinovitz is too radical. In my reading, however, that perception is not accurate. I might be mistaken, but Levinovitz is not calling to abandon maths altogether.<br /><br />Maybe the best way to understand that is by comparing Levinovitz's article to a paper entitled "Mathematical Modelling and Ideology in the Economics Academy", by Tony Lawson (the link is below). Lawson is a professor of economics and philosophy at Cambridge University and a mathematician, by training.<br /><br />To give you some context on Lawson's paper: it was part of a debate between him and a group of heterodox economists on the issue of ideology vs maths as the reason why neoclassical economics is a failure. The paper, in other words, is targeted to those other heterodox economists.<br /><br />I don't want to frame your own perception of the paper, so I'll leave you to judge it by yourself. My only suggestion is to ask yourself what is Lawson's main conclusion?<br /><br />(There are other things you could think of, like when compared to the Levinovitz article, what kind of evidence Lawson presents? If you are familiar with the history of economic thought, when did the mathematization of economics first begin? Are all contemporary schools of economic thought equally mathematized, and do all of them disagree in their basic policy prescriptions? But all this is optional and not needed to get the gist of his argument, only to evaluate it)<br /><br />Good hunting.<br /><br /><br />http://et.worldeconomicsassociation.org/papers/mathematical-modelling-and-ideology-in-the-economics-academy-competing-explanations-of-the-failings-of-the-modern-discipline/<br /><br />B.L. ZebubAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-48398180092930714732016-04-08T16:27:20.794-07:002016-04-08T16:27:20.794-07:00"I'm not Einstein. I'm not as good at..."I'm not Einstein. I'm not as good at seeing how pure mathematical structures can have physical applications."<br /><br />I'm not so sure Einstein was that good either. That's why he had to enlist the help of Grossman. In other the words the mathematics did not inform his conceptualization of the application of relativity to gravity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-30792203120304943852016-04-08T16:14:52.525-07:002016-04-08T16:14:52.525-07:00"I'm not sure you quite understand this s..."I'm not sure you quite understand this subject. Let me rewrite this sentence for you in a way that may help you realize that spacetime (curved or not) does not exist without Minkowski's math."<br /><br />So what?<br /><br />It was Einstein that conceived the next step. It was his insight that made the next step possible.<br /><br />You just cannot admit that you have it wrong.<br /><br /><br />"I wasn't talking about Einsteins math, but my own."<br /><br />Again, so what?<br /><br />Your admission supports my argument.<br /><br />Einstein may have considered how Minkowski's formulations might have been adapted to accelerated frames of reference, but it was Einstein that made the conceptual leap to curved space. Then he had to find a mathematics to formally describe it.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-81160866994669687652016-04-08T16:06:16.180-07:002016-04-08T16:06:16.180-07:00It was Einstein who conceived of curved space-time...<i>It was Einstein who conceived of curved space-time applicable to accelerated frames of reference which developed into general relativity.</i><br /><br />I'm not sure you quite understand this subject. Let me rewrite this sentence for you in a way that may help you realize that spacetime (curved or not) does not exist without Minkowski's math.<br /><br /><i>It was Einstein who conceived of <b>locally Minkowski space-time</b> applicable to accelerated frames of reference which developed into general relativity.</i><br /><br />If you mention space time again without mentioning Minkowski you obviously don't grasp general relativity.<br /><br />...<br /><br />And you left off the first part of my sentence:<br /><br />"<b>My math skills</b>, meager as they are compared to the likes of most theoretical physicists ..., nearly entirely derive from my intuition about the physical systems the math represents."<br /><br />You caught me. I'm not Einstein. I'm not as good at seeing how pure mathematical structures can have physical applications.<br /><br />I wasn't talking about Einsteins math, but my own.<br /><br />Apparently you know better than Einstein himself does about the influence Einstein's teacher Minkowski had on Einstein!<br /><br />Ha!Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-77226456909258060652016-04-08T14:10:04.648-07:002016-04-08T14:10:04.648-07:00"...nearly entirely derive from my intuition ..."...nearly entirely derive from my intuition about the physical systems the math represents. If I understand the system, the math follows."<br /><br />Hoist by your own petard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-91835011175682057382016-04-08T14:04:39.726-07:002016-04-08T14:04:39.726-07:00Minkowski's space-time applies to non-accelera...Minkowski's space-time applies to non-accelerated frames of reference and special relativity. It was Einstein who conceived of curved space-time applicable to accelerated frames of reference which developed into general relativity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-22453149962038735512016-04-08T10:23:47.006-07:002016-04-08T10:23:47.006-07:00I'm not entirely sure what he is saying most o...I'm not entirely sure what he is saying most of the time either.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-1906169296239638032016-04-08T09:56:59.682-07:002016-04-08T09:56:59.682-07:00Jason, thanks for that link to Terry's Tao'...Jason, thanks for that link to Terry's Tao's blog. I read through... interesting, but I found it to be riddled with errors, so I did him the favor of setting him straight. (@_@)Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-57353774451509290542016-04-08T09:45:51.874-07:002016-04-08T09:45:51.874-07:00Einstein first realized that matter distorts space...<i>Einstein first realized that matter distorts space-time then went about looking for the mathematics with which he could formalize his theory.</i><br /><br />Nope.<br /><br />There is no such thing as "space-time" (a 4D manifold) before Minkowski invented it. Minkowski died in 1909 and he published his 4D formulation <b>in 1907</b>. He was Einstein's former teacher. It's called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space" rel="nofollow">Minkowski space-time</a> for chrissake.<br /><br />Since there was no such thing as space-time without Minkowski, Einstein could not have imagined gravity as distortions of something that didn't exist and that he did not invent.<br /><br />Additionally, Einstein's 1908 publication of bending light had nothing to do with space-time curvature, but rather <a href="http://home.fnal.gov/~syphers/Education/Notes/lightbend.pdf" rel="nofollow">was a simple scattering calculation</a> [pdf]. It is incorrect (the correct approach shown in the pdf). And the simple scattering approach is incorrect precisely because it misses the curvature of space-time.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-41655572797733644872016-04-08T05:23:58.324-07:002016-04-08T05:23:58.324-07:00" The end result is vacuous pomposity."
..." The end result is vacuous pomposity."<br /><br />Yeah, but so what?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-75361643838824679432016-04-08T05:21:04.263-07:002016-04-08T05:21:04.263-07:00If you look more closely at the development of Ein...If you look more closely at the development of Einstein's thinking on general relativity you will see that there was considerable conceptual development before 1912, at which time his collaboration with Grossman began, and even before 1910. Your quotes above relate to the period after 1910. Einstein first realized that matter distorts space-time then went about looking for the mathematics with which he could formalize his theory. He had predicted the gravitational bending of light in 1907. The insights and conceptual development came first. The mathematics later.<br /><br />"Non-judgment inspires the doorway to boundaries"<br /><br />How silly and inappropriate a quote. Chopra is talking about pathways to ultimate consciousness not intellectual insights.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-1108234675735435072016-04-07T21:55:26.858-07:002016-04-07T21:55:26.858-07:00It's fuzzy thinking and fuzzy language like th...<i>It's fuzzy thinking and fuzzy language like this that warrants a mathematical approach to economics. I have no idea what you mean or how you arrived at it.</i><br /><br />I couldn't possibly agree more. That comment is composed of three attempted aphorisms: they are supposed to convey deep general self-evident truths in a terse manner, but in reality they just beg the questions. The end result is vacuous pomposity.<br /><br />Apply that to the much longer Hickey reply and see what you get. Good luck!<br /><br />B.L. ZebubAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-34472485790719642722016-04-07T17:44:12.550-07:002016-04-07T17:44:12.550-07:00More Einstein [ibid.]
"I am now occupied exc...More Einstein [ibid.]<br /><br />"I am now occupied exclusively with the gravitational problem, and believe that I can overcome all difficulties with the help of a local mathematician friend. But one thing is certain, never before in my life have I troubled myself over anything so much, and that I have gained great respect for mathematics, whose more subtle parts I considered until now, in my ignorance, as pure luxury! Compared with this problem, the original theory of relativity is childish."Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.com