The wavestate is entirely deterministic, and we don't fully understand where the probabilistic measurement happens. The Copenhagen intrpretation makes it probabilistic but is not proven.

(even many worlds doesn't explain why we ourselves only see one macroscopic section of the wavefunction)

Logic isn't MAEth.

Butt MAEth is logic. Don't misunderstand my meaning.

This language is literally cognitive shit.

turns out the thursday goat service brings in Dianne from networking who remembers she needs to reboot a apecific device weekly, but its not documented anywhere. When Dianne doesn't do this everyone freaks out and grabs another goat to sacririce which brings her back because who is she to say no to some good goat, and the cycle is continued and reinforced

Aye, Iris.

Well spoken, no less.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/02/09/are-economists-overrated/overreliance-on-the-pseudo-science-of-economics

He was just a delusional living knot bot.

It's amazing how nonsensical the actual foundational axioms of modern day economics are.

Classical economics tried to tie economics to functions of physical things we can measure. Adam Smith for example proposed that because you can recursively decompose every product into the amount of physical units of time it takes to produce it all the way down the supply chain, then any stable economy should, on the average (not the individual case), roughly buy and sell in a way that reflects that time, or else there would necessarily have to be physical time shortages or waste which would lead to economic problems. We thus may be able to use this time parameter to make quantifiable predictions about the economy.

Many people had philosophical objections to this because it violates free will. If you can predict roughly what society will do based on physicals factors, then you are implying that people's decisions are determined by physical parameters. Humans have the "free will" to just choose to buy and sell at whatever price they want, and so the economy cannot be reduced beyond the decisions of the human spirit. There was thus a second school of economics which tried to argue that maybe you could derive prices from measuring how much people subjectively desire things, measured in "utils."

"Utils" are of course such ambiguous nonsense that eventually these economists realized that this cannot work, so they proposed a different idea instead, which is to focus on marginal rates of substitution. Rather than saying there is some quantifiable parameter of "utils," you say that every person would be willing to trade some quantity of object X for some quantity of object Y, and then you try to define the whole economy in terms of these substitutions.

However, there are two obvious problems with this.

The first problem is that to know how people would be willing to substitute things rigorously, you would need an incredibly deep and complex understanding of human psychology, which the founders of neoclassical economics did not have. Without a rigorous definition, you could not fit it to mathematical equations. It would just be vague philosophy.

How did they solve this? They... made it up. I am not kidding you. Look up the axioms for consumer preference theory whenever you have the chance. It is a bunch of made up axioms about human psychology, many of which are quite obviously not even correct (such as, you have to assume that the person has evaluated and rated every product in the entire economy, you have to assume that every person would be more satisfied with having more of any given object, etc), but you have to adopt those axioms in order to derive any of the mathematics at all.

The second problem is one first pointed out, to my knowledge, by the economist Nikolai Bukharin, which is that an economic model based around human psychology cannot possibly even be predictive because there is no logical reason to believe that the behavior of everything in the economy, including all social structures, is purely derivative of human psychology, i.e. that you cannot have a back-reaction whereby preexisting social structures and environmental factors people are born into shape their psychology, and he gives a good proof-by-contradiction that the back-reaction must exist.

The idea that you can derive everything based upon some arbitrary set of immutable mathematical laws made up in someone's armchair one day that supposedly rigorously details human behavior that is irreducible beyond anything else is just nonsense. No one has ever even tested any of these laws that supposedly govern human psychology.

Basic foundational "observations" by Economics aren't based on the Scientific Method.

I wish the Scientific Method didn't have "Method" in the name because while it is a sensible name it also is misleading.

Science is "method agnostic", a new promising method may uncover other methods and theories that totally pull the rug out from under old theories and methods that is a necessary and sometimes brutal aspect to scientific progress.

Economics, because it began and is sustained for the most part as a system of methods searching for justification for their continuation, is largely incapable of undergoing these necessary "method resets" that come periodically in any scientific discipline.

Chemistry can admit that atoms aren't tiny planets with electons orbiting like moons because Chemistry didn't start as the pursuit to find evidence for atoms being like solarsystems and flesh out the theory that atoms are like solarsystems.

Thus no matter if locally good science is being done in economics it is undermined by the uncomfortable need to preserve the survival of the foundatinal contextualizing methods and axioms they invoke implicitly from the truth uncovered, a vice that plagues any human endeavor consciously and subconsciously and not only keeps Economics from being a real science it also largely sucks the oxygen out of the room for actually scientifically rigorous study of these phenomena.

Alchemy is a great analog here to compare Economics too. Alchemists in the pursuit of trying to figure out how to turn things to gold did interact with and in some ways advance chemistry, but alchemy could never divest itself from its own pre-existing beliefs and methods as chemistry discovered more and more of the universe and began to accurately predict more and more of it.

If alchemy was capable discarding old methods to pursue understanding phenomena more lucidly and precisely chemistry would probably be called "alchemy" in english nowadays and alchemy would be called "pseudo-alchemy".

Economics equates to alchemy they express a desire of a system of methods, axioms and explanations to produce a certain end goal and it forms fatal shackles to the follies of the past.

I might go even further and say there's no "math". There are a wide variety of axiomatic systems. None has the sole claim to being "math".

(On the other hand... I guess any system that contains the natural numbers would be sufficient for the bulk of what's widely considered "math".)