From: clyder@GN.APC.ORG
Date: Fri Jun 25 2004 - 08:29:54 EDT
I am just rather uneasy about having each agent as a thermodynmaic system since I have doubts about the reality of the utility schedules on which it is based and also to me entropy seems so tied up with integrals over probabilities that I have difficulty equating it with utility Quoting Philip Dunn <pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK>: > Quoting Paul C <clyder@GN.APC.ORG>: > > > Philip Dunn wrote: > > > > >Quoting clyder@GN.APC.ORG: > > > > > > > > > > > >>Has anyone else here read Duncan Foley's work on statistical > > >>mechanics and neo-classical economics? > > >> > > >>---------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >Hi Paul > > > > > >Not the statistical mechanics, only: > > > > > >Classical thermodynamics and economic general equilibrium theory (with > Eric > > >Smith) > > > > > > > > >Philip Dunn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I realise that I was wrong to say statistical mechanics. It is very > > much classical thermodynamics whereas my familiarity is more > > with the statistical mechanics or Shannon concepts of entropy. > > > > I thus find Duncans identification of entropy with utility of a single > > agent very > > strange since to me the idea of entropy has to be based on > > summing over large ensembles. > > > > My first thought would also have been 'agent=atom in a gas' but DF takes > each > agent as a thermodynamic system. I don't think statistical mechanics is > behind > this. I was impressed by the way that the GE initial endowments and trading > to > equilibrium were dropped in favour of reversible near-equilibrium trading > (keeping the refrigator stocked). Rather like Marxian reproduction, in fact. > > > Philip Dunn > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 30 2004 - 00:00:02 EDT