{"id":85921,"date":"2025-09-15T08:34:47","date_gmt":"2025-09-15T07:34:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/?p=85921"},"modified":"2025-09-15T08:34:47","modified_gmt":"2025-09-15T07:34:47","slug":"quantum-economics-part-7a-the-ergon-or-praxeon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2025\/09\/15\/quantum-economics-part-7a-the-ergon-or-praxeon\/","title":{"rendered":"Quantum economics, part 7A: The Ergon or Praxeon"},"content":{"rendered":"

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

Johan G, who is a commentator on this blog and who has been following the quantum economics series, posted this comment on Quantum Economics 7:<\/a> The Photon Question \u2014 labour as the Quantum of Value:<\/a><\/p>\n

I like the idea of labour as wavelength. The human-hour is easily recognisable as a quantum of effort, and its \u2018energy\u2019, rather than intensity, is dependant on the H-H wavelength. I pedantically use energy, rather than intensity, because energy could be tied to specialism, whereas intensity would be the number of humans working on the same thing at once. Much like you can use a microwave to heat stuff up, but you couldn\u2019t give yourself sunburn with it, because the wavelength is too long to cause UV-esque damage.<\/p>\n

The other thought that popped into my head, was that photons belong to a family of particles: bosons. Bosons are the exchange particles that are responsible for fundamental force interactions. In the photon\u2019s case, that is electro-magnetism. Maybe we could coin a term for the exchange particle of human labour? The labouron, or the workon. I\u2019m not sure I really like either of these, but they illustrate the idea.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That set my mind racing - and exploring, because I am on a massive learning curve here.<\/p>\n

This is the response I came up with<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Response<\/strong><\/p>\n

Let me offer this for now, generated by AI, I admit, but in a directed and generated fashion, as was this whole series.<\/p>\n

1. Why this analogy is powerful<\/strong><\/p>\n

In physics, bosons are the mediators of forces \u2013 photons carry the electromagnetic force, gluons bind quarks, W and Z bosons manage the weak force, and so on. They don\u2019t constitute matter itself (fermions do that), but they make matter interact.<\/p>\n

If we apply that metaphor to economics and society, human labour is not just \u201cstuff\u201d (like goods, capital, or even money) \u2013 it is the interaction that makes the economy cohere and function. Without labour, there is no production, no exchange, no organisation.<\/p>\n

So: imagining a \u201clabour boson\u201d \u2013 a fundamental exchange particle that mediates human economic activity \u2013 has conceptual bite.<\/p>\n

\u2e3b<\/p>\n

2. Possible names<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cLabouron\u201d or \u201cworkon\u201d both convey the particle idea, but I see why you feel they don\u2019t quite land. Here are some alternatives:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Ergon \u2013 from the Greek for work\/energy (Aristotle used ergon to mean the characteristic activity of something).
\n\u2022 Praxeon \u2013 from praxis, meaning purposeful human activity.
\n\u2022 Doleon \u2013 from doleo, Latin \u201cto toil.\u201d
\n\u2022 Taskon \u2013 straightforward and modern, but carries the right sense of discreteness.
\n\u2022 Hieron \u2013 from hieros (sacred), suggesting the deep social value of labour.<\/p>\n

Of these, ergon or praxeon might sit best: they link both to energy and to purpose.<\/p>\n

\u2e3b<\/p>\n

3. What would the \u201clabour boson\u201d do?<\/strong><\/p>\n

If we extend the analogy:<\/p>\n

\u2022 It mediates between human needs and material resources.
\n\u2022 It binds people into cooperative structures \u2013 firms, households, states.
\n\u2022 It transmits value, because labour embodies and expresses what people want to prioritise.
\n\u2022 It interacts with other \u201cforces\u201d: capital, land, technology, institutions.<\/p>\n

In other words, just as photons make the invisible force of electromagnetism visible through interaction, the \u201clabour boson\u201d would make the invisible social force of work visible through action.<\/p>\n

\u2e3b<\/p>\n

4. Extending the metaphor<\/strong><\/p>\n

We could build a small \u201cparticle table\u201d of economics:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Moneyon (currency as medium of exchange, a unit particle of trust).
\n\u2022 Crediton (the particle of deferred exchange).
\n\u2022 Labouron\/Praxeon (the particle of human effort).
\n\u2022 Needon (the driver particle, representing demand or necessity).<\/p>\n

You\u2019d then have an economic \u201cfield theory,\u201d where interactions between these exchange particles generate the larger structures we see as markets, institutions, and crises.<\/p>\n

\u2e3b<\/p>\n

\n

5. Why it matters politically<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is not just whimsy. By treating labour as the mediator of forces, you place people \u2013 their energy, creativity, and care \u2013 at the very centre of the economic model. That\u2019s a direct challenge to neoliberal economics, which sidelines labour in favour of abstract capital flows or equilibrium equations.<\/p>\n

The metaphor says: without the \u201clabour boson,\u201d the system collapses. Without people at the heart, economics is sterile mathematics.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Reaction<\/strong><\/p>\n

Having mused on this last night, I could now comment further.<\/p>\n

I am accepting the risk of becoming more than a little geeky in posting this particular exchange, rather than part nine of the series this morning (which will now happen tomorrow). However, I thought that this was particularly fascinating for a number of reasons.<\/p>\n

Firstly, this idea puts human activity at the centre of economics, where it belongs. Economics is not about money, markets, or abstract mathematics. It is about human activity, and that has to be its focus. This series has highlighted the necessity of creating narratives around that fact to me.<\/p>\n

More than that, though, the extension of the metaphor also made some sense to me. The other ideas noted, representing a range of particles within the economic sphere, implied that a multitude of factors need reconciliation within a successful economy, and that there is not one, as Rachel Reeves would have it.<\/p>\n

Taking that idea, and putting it within the mathematics of Heisenberg\u2019s uncertainty principle (which I make clear, I only understand in very small part, at most) it seems that you come up with something for economics that looks more like matrix algebra than the standard differential equations currently used by most economists.<\/p>\n

I very much doubt that this is something that I would develop at a theoretical level, and yet there is in that idea something that looks to me to be incredibly powerful. There are two reasons for that.<\/p>\n

Firstly, matrix algebra is a form of mathematics which requires specific ordering, and so does the economy.<\/p>\n

More than that, though, if you multiply two matrices together, the order in which you do so matters; then the implication is that the action does not work in reverse, and again, nor does the economy.<\/p>\n

The implication is that the economy is not something on which to experiment, precisely because real lives are involved. Instead, it is something that you have to take seriously. I am not entirely sure that this is clear to all those who are policymakers at present.<\/p>\n

I accept the possibility that I might have gone off on a significant tangent here, but there are ideas implicit in this that I think are worth recording, which is why I have chosen to put them out as a separate blog post.<\/p>\n

\n

Previous posts in this series<\/strong><\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. Discussing quantum economics, accounting, money and more<\/a><\/li>\n
  2. Quantum economics, part 1: Why Quantum Thinking Matters for Economics<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. Quantum economics, part 2: Money as Particle and Flow<\/a><\/li>\n
  4. Quantum economics, part 3: Entanglement and Double-Entry Bookkeeping<\/a><\/li>\n
  5. Quantum economics, part 4: Quantum Uncertainty and Economic Forecasts<\/a><\/li>\n
  6. Quantum economics, part 5: Speculation, Potential, and Energy<\/a><\/li>\n
  7. Quantum economics, part 6: Infinite Promises, Finite Energy (MMT and constraint)<\/a><\/li>\n
  8. Quantum economics, part 7: The Photon Question \u2014 labour as the Quantum of Value<\/a><\/li>\n
  9. Quantum economics, part 8: Land as the<\/a> Field<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    \n

    Comments\u00a0<\/b><\/h3>\n

    When commenting, please take note of this blog\u2019s comment policy,\u00a0which is available here<\/a>. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor\u2019s sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Background Johan G, who is a commentator on this blog and who has been following the quantum economics series, posted this comment on Quantum Economics
     Read the full article…<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35,106,225],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-85921","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economics","category-politics","category-quantum-economics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85921","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=85921"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85921\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":85923,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85921\/revisions\/85923"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85921"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85921"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85921"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}