Re: Gregnews: US report proves EP lies

> >There is something abusive in words such as   "financial engineering"
> >etc, an attempt to borrow the prestige of applied natural science
> >into a domain which is does not share the features to which a.n.s.
> >owes its prestige, and, from there, to infer that various rules,
> >including patent law, should also be transferred from a.n.s. to
> >that domain.
> 
> There is nothing abusive if you are familiar with modern physics.  If
> you read current physics journals, you will see a growing number of
> physicists applying the tools of moderm physics (especially statistical
> thermodynamics) to analyzing and modeling financial markets and processes.
> There is even a word to describe this growing overlap of economics and
> physics - econophysics (for example, check out the European Web site for
> econophysics - www.unifr.ch/econophysics).
> 
> Goods like commodities and currencies are in some ways representations for
> energy.  The movement and exchange of such goods is little different than
> the movement and exchange of energy in interacting particle systems.  In
> both cases, thermodynamics ignores the microscopic interactions and focuses
> instead on macroscopic properties.  It is not surprising then that
> physicists are successfully able to apply this physics to financial
> markets (indeed, Wall Street hires tons of physicists).

What you are saying here is that there is an overlap between the mathematical
models with which economics and physics can be studied.  This is really
not surprising, since it would make sense to develop mathematical models
in a way so that they can apply to the widest possible range of complex
systems.  Since the earliest ages thinkers have been using terms like 
"atom", "individual", "bit", "element" etc to make the world studiable.
And comparisons of all these domains where such models are applied of 
course can help to further improve the models.

When you look at the naming "econophysics" you once again find that it is
the economists who appear to be borrowing the prestige of the physicists,
rather than the other way around.  It is clear that physics is the most
successful and prestigious application area for these models.  Yet their
identification with "physics" by economists could again be seen as abusive.

--
Hartmut Pilch, FFII.org, Munich Office +498918979927, Brussels +3227396262
Protect Innovation, not Monopolies       http://www.economic-majority.com/