Ishi Crew
Ishi Crew
Sep 1, 2018 · 2 min read

https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02435 That has some of the econ/physics history in it eg Gibbs taught I Fisher (famous economist — -good, but flawed. Fisher completely mispredicted the ‘great depression’ of 1930s — -he said it wasnt going to happen but it did. He lost his reputation after that — -tho later corrected himself but it was too late. ).

There is alot more — Jan Tinbergen is another famous and good economist, and studied under Paul Ehrenfest .

Ehrenfest perhaps may be partially credited with explaining the ‘arrow of time’ and ‘2nd law of thermodynamics’ — he used a very simpy ‘toy model’ to describe what Boltzmann had done (boltzmann’s method is a bit too complicated so it took approx 30 years to simplify it and get rid of what was unnecesary — newtonian mechanics or kinetic theory — -that all cancels out to 0. thats why its called statistical mechanics). see Ehrenfest urn modelm if you haven’t already and want to.

I wouldnt say physicists created econ but there were intellectual borrowings and interactions in 1800’s -1900’s between physicists, econ, biology and more. (Adam Smith, Jevons, Bentham, Hayek, (wildly overrated but had a few points), and Samuelson…)

the arxiv paper above seems to me to be one form of ‘state of the art’ theory though its both sort of ‘basic’ tho there are only a few papers i’ve seen that are at that level.

(The math/conceptual difficulty is the ‘lagrangian multipliers’ — in physical chemistry called ‘chemical potentials’).

(There are a few other very theoretical approaches which are even more complex and use formalism based more on quantum and general relativisitic theory or mathematical logic, as opposed to statstical mechanics — -some look to be on right track, others are mostly wack — -or popularizations because the people writing them dont know the math.)

The 2000’s in econ theory now may be similar to the 1900’s and 1800's — -going through a phase transition (eg from ice, to water, to gas). Very few economists i’ve read or come across are even familiar with this approach — -many still live in the 1950’s — a few have made it up to 1990’s — they know what ‘multiple equilibria’ are — in past they just beleieved in ‘equilibrium’ (the one true god).

My view that shannon entropy=boltzmann =gibbs entropy is by no means universally accepted. There are tons of books and papers saying they are or aren’t. I think this is ideological or behavioral. (Some might even say genetic — people are born to be botlzmann’s, or gibbians, or shannons, or bayesians, or frequentists, or christians or muslims, democrats or republicans) . I do think the people who disagree with me are just confused — -like flys who want to go outside but get stuck on window and dont see that the window is open.

I wrote ‘most probably distribution’ — thats ok but its supposed to be ‘most probable’ — the maximum entropy distribution.

I see 1 person read my famous article — -maybe that means it will make NYTs best seller list.

    Ishi Crew

    Written by

    Ishi Crew