- On Debate
From my perspective, I think the perception that time is not a constant is correct. But I do not like the formulation being used by O’Driscoll and Rizzo. It appeals to the “existence”‘ of time.
My metaphysics is based upon memory, the constructs in memory, and the utility of memories. For those people who follow what I write, this is the Metaphysics of Memory I refer to, meaning that “existence” used in philosophy is a meaningless construct. There is a material world out there made of matter, we perceive it, and, based on the properties of our memories, we form objects that are utilitarian. They are utilitarian in the sense that our memories can construct them and make use of them. So existence, in the scientific or Platonic sense, is a meaningless concept. The world consists of matter. Our minds consist of objects, some of which are extremely complex, and some of which are tools for computing and comparing complex things beyond our perceptions: myths, narratives, numbers, logic, and formulae. Existence in any form is a concept of STATEFULNESS that simply is one of the tools we use to calculate so that the objects we can hold in our minds are simple enough to compare.
But this comparison is made simple by removing the most complex element: variation over time.
What we really do, and what we need to do, is compare processes IN time. Using static time is simply a tool for simplifying comparison.
So our formal logic is constructed of things that are applicable to the material world that operates by a fixed time, the time at which the material world unfolds. And that time frame is useful because it is a constant.
But time is different for the mind. It is a variable. People not only perceive time very differently, but they form networks of utility with each object in the network, or each process in the network, functioning at the same periodicity. This is how they make comparisons between objects. One cannot compare an outcome today against an outcome a year from now. These things have little utility in common.
Newtonian time is useful in the physical world. In the human world, in the world of economics, it is a metronome, or a clock which is constant, against which we measure our own actions so that we can coordinate with others. However, time is different, both in perception and in planning, or in the network of objects people use to build their framework of reference by which they grasp and interact with the world.
The very purpose of thought is to compress time, to be able to plan and thing AHEAD of real time. Newtonian time exists to calculate physical things, not mental things. If it were otherwise there would be no point in thinking. Reason would be pointless. One of the reasons that memory must be more simple than the real world is so that we can run models of the future so that we can choose between them and act BEFORE the current reality plays out. So thinking is compressing time.
Specifically, O’Driscoll and Rizzo point to three elements of Newtonian time in standard economic theory:
- Homogeneity. All points in time are treated the same (except their temporal coordinate) and thus time can pass without a change in the environment. Endogenous change in economic agents is not given, including learning.
- Mathematical continuity. Just as each point in time is static, each point is disconnected from all other points. The mathematical nature of Newtonian time demands infinite divisibility, thus time does not “flow” from one period to the next; it leaps. “A Newtonian system is merely a stringing together of static states and cannot endogenously generate change” (p 55).
- Causal inertness. Because time is independent from its contents, all change in the system must be presumed from initial assumptions. Thus Newtonian models lack “genuine change” and “time literally adds nothing” (p 55, emphasis in original).
The authors contrast Newtonian time with real time. They maintain “a Newtonian system is merely a stringing together of static states and cannot endogenously generate change. Each period (or point) is thus isolated. Consequently, either we have the mere continuation of a period (no change) or we have change without the ability to show how it could be generated by the previous period” (O’Driscoll and Rizzo, 55).
Seattle, WA, United States
I am an independent theorist of Political Economy in the Conservative Libertarian tradition. And as a methodological Propertarian I attempt to complete the work of Rothbard and Hoppe by suggesting post-democratic political solutions for heterogeneous polities.
"De Philosophia Aristocratia"
Anglo Conservatism is the remnant of the European Aristocratic Manorial system and the Classical Liberal philosophy of the Enlightenment, combined with our ancient tribal instincts for group persistence and land-holding. It currently consists as a set of sentiments rather than as an articulated rational philosophy. And without that rational articulation, conservatives lack the ability to create and promote a plan that is a positive and rhetorically defensible alternative to the hazards of accidental bureaucracy and purposeful socialism.
This lack of an articulated philosophy leaves conservatives vulnerable in the public debate with Schumpeterian public intellectuals whose advantage in both volume of production, and simplicity of argument poses a nearly insurmountable challenge.
Libertarianism by contrast, is a rational philosophy of an articulate but permanent minority. It is based upon a solid, rational and critical methodology, even if it is flawed in its initial assumption: the principle of non-violence.
Unfortunately the Rothbardian Anarchist movement has appropriated the term "Libertarian", and left Classical Liberals and Conservatives alienated from the only system of thought with which they need to articulate their political sentiments in rational and empirical rather than moralistic and sentimental form.
By repairing the flaws in Libertarian philosophy we can use its methodology to provide a rhetorical solution for conservatives - a language which in turn may become an articulated philosophical body of argument and advocacy for the frustrated conservative majority.
Kinsella’s Criticism of Locke, and My Explanation of Locke’s Reasonable Mistake, and What To Do About It.
66 days ago
Liberty Isn't Inherent. It's unnatural. We create it with Organized Violence.
70 days ago
Propertarian Definition: REVOLUTION
70 days ago
Giving Rorty Another Try
70 days ago
An Skeleton Argument In Defense Of Rorty From Hoppe
70 days ago
A Propertarian Definition of Ruthless
70 days ago
The Self Deception Of The Enlightenment View Of Man
70 days ago
On Rent Seeking
70 days ago
- Kinsella’s Criticism of Locke, and My Explanation of Locke’s Reasonable Mistake, and What To Do About It.