As I mentioned yesterday, I went to Cambridge for the day. This was partly to recover my MacBook, which had been in for repair, although it seems I got very little of the original back. Still, I will have proper editing capacity again next week.
More important was the objective of having the opportunity to:
sit and read, have a coffee, continue the conversation that I've had with Jacqueline for decades now, and watch the world go by.
We did this at Michaelhouse cafe, which is in St Michael's church, which was once the chapel of Michaelhouse College, which was merged to form Trinity College by Henry VIII, as I recall. For those who read murder mysteries (and I do sometimes), the Matthew Bartholomew series of novels by Susan Gregory, set around 1350, is all based in Michaelhouse, and I rather enjoy the novels, the connection, and the coffee, which is very good.
Murder mysteries were not, however, the subject of our conversation. Quantum theory was. Jacqueline has been reading on quantum biology, and I have been doing some thinking around quantum theory and economics, and even quantum accounting. As a result, she asked the question, which we Googled:
What is the equivalent of a photon in economics?
This produced no useful answers. For those not familiar,
A photon is an elementary particle that is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. Photons are massless particles that can only move at one speed, the speed of light measured in vacuum. The photon belongs to the class of boson particles.
It is not as basic as a quark, but it is the fundamental energy transmitter within the quantum physics world.
I had been musing on whether the answer might be money, although I suspected the answer was not that, but that option did not materialise from Google, and in fact nothing much of any use did, so we decided to use ChatGPT as the prompt for our discussion instead.
This discussion took place over two hours, and the following prompts were used as we sought to develop the argument we were creating. I stress that each question was answered, usually at some length, and each subsequent prompt was a response to ChatGPT's answer and our discussion of it as we sought to develop a coherent argument. Right now, I am just recording the prompts as they are part of the methodology of what we did:
- In quantum terms, is money a particle or a flow?
- How does this fit with the concept of entanglement, and how can that be related to double-entry bookkeeping?
- [Chat GPT response: Would you like me to push this one stage further — and frame it in terms of quantum uncertainty too (e.g. how forecasts, valuations, and fiscal rules behave like probability clouds rather than certainties)?] Please do.
- Another question. If we increase the cash balance in a business by £100 this is as you noted a debit. You say a credit follows, but what if we do not know which credit? How does that fit into quantum thinking?
- I can't see where this links to entrainment, but does it?
- Sorry to persist with this, but does this quantum thinking make the economic concept of equilibrium meaningless? Does it also make dynamic stochastic general equilibrium analysis futile?
- [Chat GPT response: Would you like me to sketch how a “quantum-informed” economic model might look — one that replaces DSGE with concepts like probability clouds, entanglement, and collapse events?] Please do.
- I want to go back a bit. A bank balance represents potential. What happens if it is used for speculation rather than investment in tangible assets or consumption? How do those relationships work, and how are they expressed in the quantum sphere?
- Let's assume fixed energy at a moment (I think that is fair). How then does speculative activity of the sort described entangle with the rest of the economy, because energy must be used in the process of speculation? If that denies energy (potential) to other activities, what are the consequences for those other activities?
- Now, a twist. MMT explains that there is no limit to the amount of money that might exist in a system. This is true. If money is a promise to pay, then there is no limit to the number of possible promises. But three things follow. First, is the energy associated with each unit of currency changed? Second, does the use made of the currency change the energy potential and third, does speculation create greater instability in such a system, suggesting, for example, that something like capital controls is required?
- So there is no equivalent of the photon in economics, to ask an obvious question. Or, is that the labour theory of value and did economics go wrong when it abandoned the economic classicists belief in that idea?
- Does Henry George's theory on land add any value here?
- Now, this is really unfair. Might you summarise all this in a long-form piece (as many words as you like - many thousands if you wish) that summarises all this for posting on the Finance for the Future blog? You will need to break it into chapters and then subheadings. I am looking for narrative flow. Thanks.
As I have made clear, our conversations to create each prompt took a while, although a great deal of what ChatGPT was saying in response to the queries confirmed the arguments that we had already discussed. In fact, on occasion, this was so uncanny that Jacqueline wondered whether ChatGPT was listening to us, or I had already written the ideas and all I was getting back was effective confirmation of my own opinion. I don't think that was the case, but I have trained ChatGPT on the material on this blog, and I have been previously using it as a learning and discussion tool on some of the issues we now discussed, and so it may be it was reflecting my own opinion back to me, at least in part.
That said, note the last question. In fact, I developed the last query to create a series of posts for this blog. There are at least ten of these, and with a few edits, I will start posting these on the blog because I think they are helpful.
In essence, the discussion was dialectical: we used ChatGPT as a platform to help confirm, develop, and challenge arguments, to then help take the process forward. For example, the question on Henry George was a direct challenge to a previous ChatGPT answer that I felt was overly confident and too certain on the labour theory of value. In this way, we made much more rapid progress than we might otherwise have done.
I know we stand open to the criticism that this is not necessarily the most relaxing way to take a Saturday coffee break (more than one each was consumed in the course of developing these ideas), but we much enjoyed this, and the conversation continued as we walked around Cambridge colleges for the afternoon, something we had not done for ages.
A good day out, and the first piece will follow soon. Meanwhile, this is where it happened:
And finally, a note on the posts that will follow. The posts were initially edited/drafted by ChatGPT, but all were based on the directed flow created by Jacqueline and me during our discussion, which was informed by my original thinking. We needed to adjust this flow through the questions we posed to suit our quite specific goals, checking the results as the exchange developed. All the drafts have then been re-edited by me.
These blog posts, then, began in my thinking, were developed based on discussions with Jacqueline, and were informed by research located by ChatGPT. They were then summarised by ChatGPT and edited by me. I claim full authorship as a result, whilst acknowledging this method of development. This is, after all, how research, thinking and writing have always happened, but with a modern twist added. Initial thoughts provoke discussion. Research follows. First drafts are edited, revised, checked and tested before final edits and publication. ChatGPT was just a tool in that process as much as the resources in a library might once have been.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] Discussing quantum economics, accounting, money and more […]
You clearly have too much time on your hands..
Why? What do you do over coffee?
Starter: what makes you think that economics maps on to quantum theory? We no longer think that economics is explained by old, pre-Einstein physics. In fact, it’s seemed a general view that the old mapping-onto-physics was an attempt by economists to give their subject some scientific prestige. I don’t know enough economics, and I’ve forgotten a lot of quantum theory (I did an A.M. at Harvard in 1961-62), to say sensible things here, but the initial assumption worries me.
Our paradigm has failed us.
I am trying to nap the paradigm / terrain in a new way.
I am nit saying it will succeed. I am saying it’s worth trying. What’s wrong with that? This is an experiment to see if that is the case.
Jesus………………..I knew I should have got up earlier today.
Slight rider: money is man made right? It is not something like gravity, whose source in the universe is widely debated and hypothesised? We have more tangible concepts to work from? Unless of course this is more blue sky thinking and imagine-neering. Origination is a human act – not an act of God or physics (or though arguably it is God-like).
Erm….(scratching head)……………my gut reaction upon reading the definition of a photon was that money is the photon (particle). It also conveys a form of economic energy created as legal tender when it is created. But the economy is also responding it to the availability of that money as well, between those who carry it and those who receive it. That is the flow.
Some of these flows have wider effects than others – depending on origination. Arguably government originated money as the key originator has the potential to spread that money-energy quite widely. OTOH, the banking system seems to narrow the energy towards certain sectors of the population or markets that are in favour or dominate. The banking and capitalist system also does things to the property of that money by adding interest to it – making money out of the money so to speak. So this is another inception point for money. Does this happen to photons in physics?
What seems to happen in the physics of the money system, is that photons are being pooled – taken out of the flow – and their energy constrained by greed, ambition and corruption, creating gaps in the economy, putting money-energy to use inappropriately. These are disruptions to flow in my view. These photon-thieves need to be be stopped.
The labour theory of value !! Ergo ‘ the value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of socially necessary labor required to produce it’. Well, looking around me at everything that is failing I would say that that theory is not being applied in favour of more individual flows that enrich a few people.
44 Words left – so I’ll say this – the flow of money – like the flow of blood – needs to be protected – the energy of money is for everyone – not just self appointed worthies.
I think you need to let this develop. Chapter 1 is not the whole story.
Money is an ‘energy of exchange’. Non money is also, as in barter, beads or seashells. All have been used by humanity for many millennia. Even a cat has grasped the concept! She would frequently go to a local shop taking a leaf with her to exchange for food. Apes, monkeys or corvids would be the usual examples, but I’m a cat person.
There is no proven link in history between barter and money. Money is debt.
Thank you for a Ha-ha moment for your quantum money idea, I don’t get many. It will give me many ideas to ponder.
I haven’t used ChatGPT but was impressed, I will look into it.
You have to work hard on the questions. We were using the paid for version.
A fruitful vine, this conversation!
I shall await developments and an idiot’s guide.
Seeking further Brother Cadfael novels for my mother, I came across a box of secondhand copies the whole series which I took on successive camping trips. Susan Gregory rings a bell… off to the library Monday. I could use a bit of escapism.
She is good…
Susanna Gregory. In case anyone else needs a little escapism.
Susanna Gregory. In case anyone else needs a little escapism.
Did I get it wrong? Sorry. I like it that I can still sit in the same church. We also went to St Benet’s on Saturday – a lovely space that definitely felt prayed in. Not all churches do. I cannot explain why.
Isn’t it a key concept in quantum mechanics that energy and matter exists (at the atomic/particle scale) in discrete states, rather than continuously variable? E.g. the different electron orbits as an atom receives quanta of energy.
Whereas economic phenomena, defined by money, can be continuous (at least down to the minimum unit of account, such as 1p). Likewise, labour is continuous (someone could spend one hour and one minute to create a certain value of production).
On the other hand, perhaps products are discrete, at least when finished; otherwise booked to WIP (e.g. a half-finished car at the accounting date). SImilarly services: is there any economic value in a half-cooked meal or half-cut hairstyle?
So, I’m at a bit of a loss to see whether a quantum physics analogy is useful; but I await your posts which will no doubt shed some light and a broader perspective.
Wait and see. I address this.
If money is not continuous then most differential analysis is only approximately correct, as fundamentally the delta can never reach zero. Thus all economics based on differential equations is riddled with errors, and difference equations often show marked periods of instability.
The quantum question is absolutely fundamental to modern scientific thinking but has not yet been embraced by many applied scientists/engineers.
Wait for the test of whether time is quantum or continuous? And is it indeed unidirectional, as it appears to be, despite some experiments suggesting otherwise….
I think I have to be clear: money can behave as both a particle and a wave. Duality, and economy, in this is of importance in itself to our understanding of how the economy works, but you are quite right with regard to differential equations. Steve Keen has addressed this issue – see Debunking Economics.
[…] post continues the story of quantum economics, which began here. That post provides important background information on how this series developed and was drafted. […]
Slightly tangentially, but on your experience of ChatGPT you say “a great deal of what ChatGPT was saying in response to the queries confirmed the arguments that we had already discussed.” You also say that your wife sometimes thought “all I was getting back was effective confirmation of my own opinion.” I have to say that is often my experience too. It does a lot of validating and it learns from what you have told it already. It then tidies it up and repackages it. Where it works in my experience, is that it can give a structure to sometimes vague ideas and it can introduce you new (always related) ideas and new writers, and it is good a playing one idea against another. It offers a good way to explore something new. But the clarity it offers is, I think, sometime more apparent than real.
I can live with that. And I knew pretty much what I was trying to say already. It helped give it form. In that sense it acted like an editor, and having a good editor is of value.
[…] post continues the story of quantum economics, which began here. There is a summary of posts to date at the end of this […]
[…] post continues the story of quantum economics, which began here. There is a summary of posts to date at the end of this […]
Re:
“Photons are massless particles that can only move at one speed, the speed of light measured in vacuum.”
I never like correcting you, but this is incorrect, or (I think) very badly expressed. The speed of light (c) varies with the medium through which the light is passing. It is highest in a vacuum, but lower in transparent media, such as air, water, glass, etc.
On following your link, I was rather alarmed to see that those words come directly from the Wikipedia entry! However, the Wiki entry discusses this further down the article, in the section ‘In Matter’: “Light that travels through transparent matter does so at a lower speed than c, the speed of light in vacuum. The factor by which the speed is decreased is called the refractive index of the material.”
Phew!
OK
Accepted.
But that really does not change my argument.
I am really not sure you undertsand why I am writing this.
As far as I understand it, you are exploring alternative approaches to economics and understanding money in order to replace the current woefully inadequate neoliberal model that the world seems to accept as axiomatic. I’m sure this is an over-simplification on my part, and I see strong political principles involved as well.
I support that entirely.
My feeling at the moment is that it’s not an appropriate model. I hear the ominous creaking sound of a model being stressed beyond its limits.
However, I might be wrong and I’m entirely supportive of you looking at this, as I am of Steve Keen in his complementary approach to finding better economic models. There are presumably others of whom I’m unaware.
Even if I’m right, we will learn useful stuff along the way. This kind of effort is never wasted, and might pave the way to those better models that we need. Knowing what does not work, and why, is valuable, and too few people understand that. My reading of your posts and comments tells me you do understand this.
Finally:
“We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to return to where we started
And know the place for the first time”
I have always accepted this may not work
But it would be worse not to try it
And I am more optimitsic than you right now
Have you read this morning’s?
I have not yet read this morning’s, and I am well behind on this. Apologies. I can’t work off a screen very well, so tend to copy, paste, print and work off that. I’ll have a look later, my chores await my attention.
I’m quite neutral, btw. Interested, though. I have other models in mind, encountered in my professional life.
As for my comment on speed of light. First, I have a science background, and my inner pedant is not far below the surface so I tend to respond, and any basis of a model needs to be on a firm foundation. It’s a bad habit that has got me into trouble on occasions.
Second, on reflection, if money moves at different speeds in different parts of the economy, that might need to be taken into account and refractive Index could be a useful concept. Take a person’s salary, for example. It can be split between the portion that is spent now, on immediate needs, and a portion that might be saved against future spending. These portions are in media with different RIs, say.
I could, of course, be talking bollocks. I mostly do.
Oh, and as a jokey aside on the opening of your post – you appear to have the MacBook equivalent of ‘Trigger’s Broom’! 🙂 Sorry.
You will find that I do get to the issue of money moving in different ways in different parts of the economy, fairly soon. I am not sure that the next part will be out tomorrow morning as yet: Today has been mighty busy with video recording and production.
[…] post continues the story of quantum economics, which began here. There is a summary of posts to date at the end of this […]