d foley sez wrong !!!
his thermo-con paper:
"A mechanical analogue in
economics would require not only forces, but dynamical
equivalents to inertia."a mechanical system at rest ie with all forces initially in balance absent a shock willl stay in balance
ie in equilibrium ie at rest
and will stay at rest a mechanical system in motion will stay in motion
you gotta go thermal if you want an analogy to utility based exchange systems
fisher found that out thanks to mentor gibbs :
"thermodynamics, and not mechanics, is the correct physical theory
to explain how disequilibrium systems can converge to equilibrium
and remain there."
the original thermo con trickster mr W
was actually a simple newtonian mechanist
without a dynamic theory to get him to equilibrium
and on top of that operating with a nasty conflation of his the unit level the trader
and the aggregate level the market system and its total utility state
come now statistical mechanics
but another errorfisher thinks his agents are analogous to innocent stocastic objects
particles insideless balls in stochastic motion
AND
Tto the deterministic state arrived at by these particles in mutual and interacting motion
walras/fishers unit was an optimizing utiliton a simple maximizer of a substance
it stores or eats
loose in a free for all vol-trade market opportunity full of other such concious maximizer units
ready to be trading for utils with each other
"The potential minimized at physical equilibria is not the energy,
as was believed in Walras’s time, but a quantity called free energy
which also receives contributions from the entropy"
as was believed in Walras’s time, but a quantity called free energy
which also receives contributions from the entropy"
"Fisher was ...drawing analogies of the economic agent to both stochastic
and deterministic physical objects at the same time""utility .. a measurable
quantity analogous to potential energy in mechanics"
