I’m not sure what you mean by this, but based on what I’m guessing you mean, I don’t think this is actually accepted as truth by physicists. In particular, physics is supposed to work the same in reverse.
Making humans overall (more) happy is good.
This is more of a moral claim than a psychological one; it’s normative, not descriptive.
Markets are efficient.
I don’t think most people believe this. I think the economists I know would say that it’s closer to something like, “Markets tend towards efficiency in the absence of outside influences.”
Capitalism requires continuous economic growth.
Not sure what you mean by this, but it sounds probably wrong to me intuitively. Why do you think this is true—or if you don’t, why do you think other people think it is true?
I don’t think this is actually accepted as truth by physicists.
That is mostly so because physicists know about falsifiability and are mostly ready to revise a theory for one that makes better predictions (provided it’s not their own).
In particular, physics is supposed to work the same in reverse.
That’s not what I meant. I thought more about something like Segals chronometric cosmology which “presents a continuation of the nonanthropocentric tradition, in that it distinguishes between the observed time x_0, which takes the same form as in special relativity, and global time t, which is sychnonous with x_0 in the short run …”. The development of the universe is usually pictured to have started with the big bang. But in Segals theory that is only because it looks that way due to the curvature. Every point in that universe model would see a different point (at 90°) as ‘big bang’. Note that Segals theory was found to make wrong predictions, but that doesn’t mean that other alike theories might be found which don’t.
“Markets tend towards efficiency in the absence of outside influences.”
That is exactly the ‘non-locality of truth’ meant by Nancy. The question is: What (kind of) influences.
Capitalism requires continuous economic growth.
Why do you think this is true—or if you don’t, why do you think other people think it is true?
Oh man! Disagreement! I like disagreement!
I’m not sure what you mean by this, but based on what I’m guessing you mean, I don’t think this is actually accepted as truth by physicists. In particular, physics is supposed to work the same in reverse.
This is more of a moral claim than a psychological one; it’s normative, not descriptive.
I don’t think most people believe this. I think the economists I know would say that it’s closer to something like, “Markets tend towards efficiency in the absence of outside influences.”
Not sure what you mean by this, but it sounds probably wrong to me intuitively. Why do you think this is true—or if you don’t, why do you think other people think it is true?
How do you mean this?
You enjoy disagreements. In this case that I proposed opportunities for that.
You are happy to get an apportunity to disagree with what I wrote.
You see my comment as a disagreement with established truth.
That is mostly so because physicists know about falsifiability and are mostly ready to revise a theory for one that makes better predictions (provided it’s not their own).
That’s not what I meant. I thought more about something like Segals chronometric cosmology which “presents a continuation of the nonanthropocentric tradition, in that it distinguishes between the observed time x_0, which takes the same form as in special relativity, and global time t, which is sychnonous with x_0 in the short run …”. The development of the universe is usually pictured to have started with the big bang. But in Segals theory that is only because it looks that way due to the curvature. Every point in that universe model would see a different point (at 90°) as ‘big bang’. Note that Segals theory was found to make wrong predictions, but that doesn’t mean that other alike theories might be found which don’t.
That is exactly the ‘non-locality of truth’ meant by Nancy. The question is: What (kind of) influences.
I have heard this often. Ad hoc I can give only a German link: http://www.uni-protokolle.de/Lexikon/Wachstum_%28%D6konomie%29.html