1920
I.
The good news:
Recently, I discerned one of the chief reasons that socialist economies are incredibly inefficient, or even fail (in part: in capitalism, part II).
The bad news:
Today I learned that a famous economist named Ludwig von Mises made this argument in 1920, referred to as "the economic calculation problem."
It is encouraging that my intuition carried me the right way despite a lack of training in economics (though, I admit, it did help to have an understanding of thermodynamics), but it is disappointing that I am nearly 90 years behind the times.
II.
The good news:
A few years ago I came up with a cosmological theory that seemed different and very intriguing (maybe just to me). Unfortunately my math skills were not sufficiently developed to do some necessary calculations. It popped into my head again a couple months ago and I realized the theory couldn't work for an obvious reason that I should have seen right away. Even though it took me awhile, at least I figured it out.
The bad news:
About the same time that I realized the theory had to be wrong I learned that it had actually already been postulated (and quickly rejected) by physicists around...1920.
Conclusions.
1. It is encouraging to know that I do have some level of creativity within the domains of physics and economics, and that the creativity is genuinely grounded in reality. It is encouraging that I can come to the correct results on my own. That said, it is rather disheartening that I am consistently 90 years late, with consistency being defined by two data points.
2. Perhaps I should read domain literature to get up to date.
The good news:
Recently, I discerned one of the chief reasons that socialist economies are incredibly inefficient, or even fail (in part: in capitalism, part II).
The bad news:
Today I learned that a famous economist named Ludwig von Mises made this argument in 1920, referred to as "the economic calculation problem."
It is encouraging that my intuition carried me the right way despite a lack of training in economics (though, I admit, it did help to have an understanding of thermodynamics), but it is disappointing that I am nearly 90 years behind the times.
II.
The good news:
A few years ago I came up with a cosmological theory that seemed different and very intriguing (maybe just to me). Unfortunately my math skills were not sufficiently developed to do some necessary calculations. It popped into my head again a couple months ago and I realized the theory couldn't work for an obvious reason that I should have seen right away. Even though it took me awhile, at least I figured it out.
The bad news:
About the same time that I realized the theory had to be wrong I learned that it had actually already been postulated (and quickly rejected) by physicists around...1920.
Conclusions.
1. It is encouraging to know that I do have some level of creativity within the domains of physics and economics, and that the creativity is genuinely grounded in reality. It is encouraging that I can come to the correct results on my own. That said, it is rather disheartening that I am consistently 90 years late, with consistency being defined by two data points.
2. Perhaps I should read domain literature to get up to date.
posted by Jordan at 9:10 PM
8 Comments:
Jordan, you are a child of light. I think your gifts will come in handy b/c if you are indeed 90 years behind the times, we might need your help when the stock market crash comes. Followed by the loss of agricultural products due to the 'dust bowl' phenomena in the midwest.
I'm glad people like you are on our side. 'Our' side meaning, 'my' side, wherever I may be.
Your parents are so proud of you.
Holy crap, you are so far behind the times! I bet you call things "narly" and "radical" too.
Anyway, I'm glad to see that your mind leads you to conclusions of more classical forms of physics and philosophy. I find this encouraging. I've found things in Pascal that I've concluded on my own, and feel a sort of connection to the past. This happens with the bible too, but there is the Holy Spirit involved with that, and I don't think we have the same historical perspective of the bible that we do with other documents (i.e., it feels like Pascal, Locke, etc. are older than the bible somehow, although this is obviously very false).
So was your scientific theory the one about the expanding-retracting universe? I thought it was a good idea, and am sad to know it was disproven (that's not a word?... hmm... I'm confused why Mozilla said it isn't... maybe I should have used "disproved.").
Thanks Erik. Does this mean that my brain is entering a period it will term "the roaring twenties"? Will it be a golden age of prosperity followed by a devastating crash and depression?
Chris,
Yes, this was the harmonic universe thing. The problem is entropy. If you imagine a water balloon that is sitting on the ground and expanding and contracting radially it is intuitive that it will stop this cycle fairly quickly. Even if there were no friction with the ground it would soon stop. That is because the movement of the walls will simply transfer energy to the water inside, heating it up. An expanding/contracting universe would do the same--transfer energy to the matter within, heating it up and eventually halting the cycle. That is the sad thing I should have seen right away. Of course, the density of the universe is much less than a water balloon, so the process would take much longer with the universe, but it would still happen. This doesn't necessarily mean that the cyclic idea is wrong, but it implies other things:
1. it has the same problem as the big bang in that it must have a beginning
2. it would have a definite end unless the universe is not in fact a closed system (which counters a fundamental assumption of the sciences)--e.g., the universe could be one of many, all tightly packed together, colliding, and transfering energy at their intersections....
3. probably other things...
Also 'disproved' and 'disproven' are both correct, just like 'proved' and 'proven' are the same.
Jordan,
The crash was not as bad as history teachers would have liked it. The economy was also artificially suppressed (well, it was really suppressed, but not because of its own doing - it would have done well otherwise) by socialist policies such as those put forth by FDR. Thus, I believe your prosperity of mind may hit a bump in the future, but if handled correctly and protected from socialist ideas, it will be a minor note in the history of your brain.
Also, yeah, that does probably imply other things. I liked that point. So does that means that global warming could be due to a harmonic behavior (damped harmonic?) of the earth? I say that as kind of a joke, but as I'm writing, I'm thinking that if there is such a behavior with the atmosphere (on a small level, otherwise we'd see significant density changes - something we've been measuring for centuries), it would cause heat... And the thought of possible other universes is not beyond the realm of "normal" science, is it? I would think legitimate cosmetology would at least accept the possibility.
Anyway, I'm tired.
I have a question. Who thinks about these things. Why can't we all just think about puppies and shopping and working out...
Who says that isn't all we/I think about? Puppies lead me to some of the most fascinating conclusions regarding cosmetology. Shopping is a philosophical lesson in itself. And working out... well, that's history right there.
Post a Comment
<< Home