PKT message, Re: Backed Money-Sproul/Tomasson

Ted writes:

The idea of the "foolish consistency" of the "remorseless logician" is frequently invoked by Keynes to describe the mentality of "classical theorists".

"The classical theorists resemble Euclidean geometers in a non-Euclidean world who, discovering that in experience straight lines apparently parallel often meet, rebuke the lines for not keeping straight - as the only remedy for the unfortunate collisions which are occurring. Yet, in truth, there is no remedy except to throw over the axiom of parallels and to work out a non-Euclidean geometry. Something similar is required to-day in economics." (VII, p. 16)

As (a) long-time student of the epistemological aspects of modern theoretical physics, and (b) long-time admirer of John Maynard Keynes' intellectual brilliance, I submit that this is one case where Keynes got snookered by the epistemological neophytes, that sold us the concept of "non-Euclidean world".

In this respect, Einstein himself stands out as the sole exception among twentieth-century theoretical physicists of first rank to the view-point expressed by Cornell philosopher E. A. Burtt in 'The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Phyiscal Science' written around 1930, in which the author offered the following summary:

"It has no doubt been worth the metaphysical barbarism of a few centuries to possess modern science." (Anchor Books, 1954, pp. 305-306)

Thus, in a report on a discussion between them in the late 1920s, Heisenberg quotes Einstein as commenting with respect to the epistemological pre-suppositions on how "theory" relates to "observations" which guided his work on Special Relativity:

"Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning, but it is nonsense all the same." ('Physics and Beyond', Harper Torchbooks, 1972, p. 63)

Indeed, Einstein concluded a letter to a friend, dated August 10, 1954, that ALL his theoretical constructions might be just so much hot air qua theory:

"I concede, however, that it is quite possible that physics cannot be founded on the concept of field - that is to say, on continuous elements. But then, out of my whole castle in the air - including the theory of gravitation, but also most of current physics - there would remain almost nothing." ('Einstein - A Centenary Volume', Harvard University Press, 1979, p. 269)

Of course, the concept of "non-Euclidean world" stands and falls with Einstein's "theory of gravitation" alias General Theory of Relativity.

Yet, it is not exactly rocket science to see that successful MODELLING or DESCRIBING observed physical phenomena by means of mathematical constructs, including geometrical ones, tells us NOTHING about the "physically real" (Einstein's term) that is being modelled or described.

For as David Hume concluded 250 years ago and as Stephen W. Hawking reiterated more recently:

"...a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make. IT EXISTS ONLY IN OUR MINDS AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER REALITY (whatever that might mean)." ('A Brief History of Time', Bantam Books, 1988, p. 9)

In the General Theory, Keynes shamelessly mixed analytical apples and empirical oranges - things that exist only in our minds and other things. My recent exchange with Paul Davidson on zero or non-zero aggregate entrepreneurial profit in the General Theory model is a case in point.

The result has been the bedlamite macro-economics which PKT is struggling hard to set right.

As a logician, Keynes was not "remorseless" enough!

Gunnar

Re: Backed Money-Sproul/Tomasson > Keynes on Physics