From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Tue Feb 14 2006 - 04:24:02 EST
Ian wrote But I don't think I can support this point of view in a brief email, so I will not try. A simple analogy might help. It is not possible to deduce the semantics of a thermostat by observing a set of independent equilibrium states in which the ambient temperature matches the thermostat setting. Part of the meaning of the control sub-states of the thermostat are only revealed in non-equilibrium states, when the temperature mismatches the thermostat setting. F&M's theory has some elements of dynamics, but its probabilistic nature does not inherently address the need to understand the causality of money and abstract labour out of equilibrium. Capitalism is not just a gas -- it has this peculiar control structure of money flows that enforce global constraints locally. ------------ I see what you are getting at there. This is the same problem that I think I am trying to work on in looking at the conservation relations entailed in money and credit. I am particularly interested in the non equilibrium dynamics aspects too. I have only got atomistic state space differential analysis in equations so far, not got to the point of constructing a full simulation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 15 2006 - 00:00:02 EST