Philosophy is the most basic form of reasoning/"science"

Economics is closer to pure mathematics than any other science.

And no, you completely misunderstand the purpose of economics to state that

wrong

logic *is* mathematics

That’s not an argument.

Here let me further my proposition.

Economics seeks to explain material phenomena utilizing the relations between two individuals or entities in an exchange. In order to understand all economic phenomena, in order to derive one variable, one must make sure he understands the exchange ratios for all consumers and commodities that exist and make sure this matrix of equations is discrete I.e. the number of unknowns match the number of equations.

How is this not unironically more pure than physics? Strictly speaking the analysis of ‘pure’ economics as some economists have referred to it like Léon Walras and Vilfredo Pareto is strikingly similar to analyzing physics in a vacuum. So much so, that Irving Fisher used vector-force analysis to analyze different economic relations, like you would with particle physics.

Fourth dimensional analysis is even utilized to comprehend relations between four different commodities in ‘Mathematical Investigations...’

youtube.com/watch?v=zJwwAVM1Auc&feature=youtu.be&t=30

Kierkegaard, what a weird surname, imagine being called "cemetery".

Attached: spring.jpg (940x758, 335K)

Just read the post above yours. I study mathematics. It’s not like I don’t even dip into the area of ‘scientific’ physics analysis as well with my studies.

Let’s be real here, Economics is definitely a science.

economics is the study of money. money is god. god speaks in mathematics. economics is the purest field

Mathematics is an axiomatic system that is wholly logical and abstract. But logic in and of itself is not necessarily mathematics.

Money is not God. I denounce your ‘’’’’theory’’’’ of why Economics is a science as false.

This idea is sinful. The study of pure economics doesn’t even deal with a single commodity for money sometimes, fortunately.

I rest my case

Attached: econ.jpg (800x1585, 200K)

Mathematics is the logic of quantity.

Economics is physics applied to the realm of trade, I agree.

I do not agree that you should be concerned with ‘making money’ or ‘getting rich’ when analyzing economic systems. This is not what any intelligent economist is concerned with.

Serious philosophy uses mathematics, physics, biology etc.

Foucault, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche like all continental philosophers are just cheap sofists.

In the past a good knowledge of set theory and logic would be enough to start studying philosophy. Nowadays category theory and model theory are also becoming pre-requisites.

Attached: 9780198748991.jpg (358x550, 46K)

Math isn't real though.

Attached: 9780198790396.jpg (364x550, 27K)

>Serious philosophy uses mathematics
That's just mathematical logic.
>physics
That gets into pseudoscientific bullshit.
>biology
Unless it's about bioethics, this also gets into pseudoscientific bullshit.

Attached: YDIO6W8_d.jpg (400x300, 17K)

Math isn't real...
it's complex!

The only "philosophy" worth studying is a subfield of mathematics.

Abstract Algebra, model theory, category theory etc. are becoming pre-requisites. It's not just set theory and mathematical logic anymore.

Philosophy of physics is more rigorous than most speculative theoretical physics. Nearly all philosophers of physics are mathematical physicists.

Bioethics is pseudoscience.
On the other hand, nearly all important questions in theoretical biology fall in the domain of philosophy of biology. For example: the nature of homology, units of selection, phylogeny vs. tokogeny, the use of axiomatic theories in biology etc.

Economics is not repeatable. It is a study of systems deriving primarily from human actions. It is sociology. It just happens to be the most science-looking of the social studies. But it is no science.

MAHZ

...

That's sort of mean, user.

>Thinking that money is anything other than a way to optimize trade
wow, were did you graduate?

A economist is a scientist, so he will always be poorer than a "pure" high skill businessman. The former investigates and thinks about how things work, meanwhile the latter takes things "as is" and proceed to make profit from it.

Economists aren't scientists. Please stop contributing to the devaluation of the word science.

How is economics an application of physics? At most mathematical and statistical methods.

All of math is a subset of philosophy, not the other way around.

Correct, and just like science has lost itself because it's tried to separate itself from philosophy, so has mathematics.

Mathematicians nowadays don't even know what numbers really are, nor do they understand the concept of infinity, it's become an illogical clusterfuck.

I fear you don't actually know what you're talking about. Mathematicians are very much aware of what numbers are and mean. They also understand infinity. Set theorists have the best grasp, because they consider ideas related to infinite beyond the standard ZFC.

False. You can't do philosophy without mathematics.

>Mathematicians nowadays don't even know what numbers really are, nor do they understand the concept of infinity, it's become an illogical clusterfuck.

I really hope you are trolling.

Modern philosophy have the same quality as modern art.
It's verbose word wankering with nothing meaningful said. Whatever is said is subjective feelings and hunches coated in logical fallacies.
It's an amateur show.

A businessman is to an economist what an engineer is to a physicist

Yes I'm sure Derrida knows what numbers "really" are.

I'm sure you'd agree infinity doesn't end, but do you believe it also doesn't have a beginning?

>this is what philosophy brainlets think number theory is

This is continental sophistry. There is also science-based analytical philosophy.

>Economics is not repeatable.
Is geology "repeatable"? Is cosmology "repeatable"? Is evolutionary biology "repeatable"?

It's a simple question brainlets, yes or no?

>I'm sure you'd agree infinity doesn't end, but do you believe it also doesn't have a beginning?
It may or may not have a beginning. [math]\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}[/math] has a least element, but [math]\mathbb{R}_{>0}[/math] does not.

infinity is the concept of something not having an ending
but we define the set aleph null as the smallest infinity, assigning a number to each object in a set we never find a largest number, there's always another object to count.
but you can start anywhere you fucking retard.

You're asking the right questions. They are not repeatable therefore they are not science no matter how much they think they are, they are a subset of metaphysics.

Seems like something starts at the end of countable infinity that extends to uncountable infinity.

For instance, consider the primary electronic energy levels in Hydrogen as diagonal entries in a Hermitian Hamiltonian matrix. Starting with the Lyman, Balmer, Paschen, Brackett, and Pfund levels, the matrix is infinite but only countably infinite as the energy levels climb to the Rydberg excitations near the ionization energy. There are countably infinite integer labeled energy shells in the atom. However, what happens to the diagonal entries of Hamiltonian operator for energies above the ionization energy? They say "the entries become delta functions" but that leaves a little more to be desired with regards to understanding the transition of the structure precisely at the ionizing energy. That is the energy where the spectrum of available eigenstates transitions from a discrete spectrum to a continuous one at the [math]n=\infty[/math] atomic energy level.

Attached: TRINITY____+____9yhbi9t907ddd867e586986753876y3t932638p.jpg (296x475, 39K)

>evolution isn't real

Ah, but is zero a number, or the lack of one?

If you have a starting point, you must then have an end point, it's logically impossible to have one without the other.

You're both dumb. Science has to do with natural reality. Economics has to do with social systems. Economics is just applied math. Not a science.

>social systems have nothing to do with reality

Attached: you.png (621x702, 56K)

explain why its logically impossible to have a start point but no end point

>Ah, but is zero a number, or the lack of one?
>If you have a starting point, you must then have an end point, it's logically impossible to have one without the other.
Please tell me this is bait.

>countable infinity
>uncountable infinity

Infinity is infinity. The property of being countable or uncountable cannot apply to it.

>If you have a starting point, you must then have an end point
Wrong. The natural numbers have a starting point but no ending point.

Put on your reading glasses or get something for your dyslexia.

It's logically impossible in the same way you cannot have up without down, the existence of one is contingent on the existence of the other, they cannot exist without each other.

Is this the power of philosophy?

>I don't know what I'm talking about

Attached: you.jpg (645x729, 49K)

Economics has to do with social systems. Social systems are a part of reality. Science has to do with natural reality. Therefore economics is a science. QED.

The "starting" point being zero? What properties does zero have that makes it a number?

Are you guys purposefully being deceitful. NATURAL reality, not reality. The social systems developed by humans were constructed. They weren't principles of how the universe works like physics or chemistry, or how life works like biology.

What's your argument?

you've just said the exact same thing.
tell me why this is the case.

>humans are above the nature and the universe not a part of it

Humans are not above nature. Human physiology is a science. Human anatomy is a science. Studying the social systems constructed by humans is a "social science", which is not real science.

>humans bear the uncanny ability to magically create non-natural realities

It's the binary nature of things, nothing could exist without it.

/thread

Good posts, have (You)s

I don't agree infinity doesn't end. Infinite doesn't have an imposed order until you add more relations and operations.

Why /pol/? Most creationists nowadays are leftists.

>I don't agree infinity doesn't end.

So would you then conclude that infinity can have a beginning and an end?

Agreed

lmao epistemology says nothing of use

Again, if the right kind of order relation is imposed. Consider the set of elements in the closed interval [0, 1]. One might argue that 0 is the beginning of this interval, being the lowest term.

Aren't the brackets the beginning and end?

Epistemology depends on biology. Things are not arranged in these naive hierarchies.

fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html

You could say natural reality is reflective of the decisions and choices made by various individuals. Von Neumann wrote an economics work.

There was someone asking how physics can be applied to economics. They are the same thing... taken from the penultimate chapter of Fisher’s Mathematical Investigations...

A particle corresponds to an individual. Space corresponds to commodity. Force corresponds to marginal (dis)utility. Work corresponds to disutility. Energy corresponds to utility.

Work or Energy = force x space
Disutility or utility = marginal utility x commodity

Force is a vector (directed in space)
Marginal utility is a vector (directed in commodity)

Forces are added by vector addition (parallelogram of forces)
Marginal utility are added by vector addition (parallelogram of marginal utility)

Work and Energy are scalars
Disutility and utility are scalars.

It goes on and on in the similarities, that’s just an excerpt

What are the brackets for?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_(mathematics)

I agree. Here is an interesting post in an Alt-Right blog defending the mainstream academic economics.
socialmatter.net/2018/01/05/in-defense-of-academic-economics/

>Epistemology
Without fail, any time you see someone arguing from an epistemological position here it will always amount to "muh uncorroborated experience is primary, science can't know nuffin!"

Would [0,1 or 0,1] work?

Almost any genuinely valuable Economics is not biased.
See
Not biased.

Unfortunately, when you read economists like Ludwig Von Mises there is literally a chapter at the end of the book intended to be a political polemic full of invectives against the left. It’s sad, really, what Austrian ‘’’’’economists’’’’’’ have done to economics.

You’d want at the very LEAST Keynesian economics, and if you really want to get mathematical, then you’d be interested in Neoclassical.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_(mathematics)

Not Naturalized Epistemology, which is based on neuroscience and evolutionary biology.

>dodging the question