Is economics more fundamental than physics ?


Physics inherently incorporates energy, which is defined there as a
limited resource. A limited resource's static distributions 
and dynamic transactions must obey some form of economic theory.

Any mathematical (symbolic) representation which is applied to
physics must contain constraints which in some sense address
its economic laws like conservation of energy and the relativity 
of energy, which at times may seem to even contradict themselves[2]. 

   pure mathematics       physical models
                  \      /
                   \    /
                    \  /
              economic constraints 
             (applied mathematics)

It might as well be said that "game theory" rather than "economics"
is a "different" classification for any theory which connects a purely 
subjective symbolic representation to physical models, but this
distinguishment would require a definition itself. If that definition
reduces to the identity operator then the two classifications
"economics" and "game theory" may be taken as  equivalent and identical,
meaning not only that they translatable, but also that they are 
signifying[1] the same physical thing or self-simulating, 
or auto-correlating, or autopoeitic, or real-time...

This constraint of "accountability" seems essential in an economy; 
in pure mathematics; it is not essential ? The question may be asked: 

     "Is pure mathematics economical ?" 

Any aspect of pure mathematics which does not admit infinities 
can be can be called economical ? 

In physics, and particularly quantum physics, dynamic effects tend 
to admit the "infinity" concept. For instance, in economics, "money" 
always has at least two fundamental valuations: 

  1) The liquidable value in "the present": 
       This is the value of the money if "measured" in the present.
       It is very similar to the idea of a "particle"  or "state" 
       as a measured value in quantum physics since the "tangible" 
       value measured must conform to the "economic" law of 
       conservation of energy, and yet the measured value of the 
       particle is derived from an "intangible" market value 
       (wavefunction) at some specific (static) time of its collapse.

  2)  The future or speculative value:
       This is the market value projected into the future which
       does not require any "strong" adherence to the economic
       law of the conservation of energy and so admits to infinities.
       In quantum physics, "virtual particles" may utilize energy
       in the economic sense of "credit"; or money which is loaned
       in speculation of its return with interest. 

We might ask: 

      "Where in physics is energy loaned out (in violation of the 
       conservation law) with the expectation of return with interest ?"


      "What is the analog of 'interest' in physics ?"

Inorganic Economies

       In inorganic physics, a laser amplifies the pumping energy,
       which may "appear" to violate the conservation laws. How can
       a laser put out more power than it is given ? The definition
       of "power" is relative. It's static value is determined by
       how spatial-temporally focused the energy it represents is. 
       Its dynamic value is more problematic to measure.

       The dynamic value, like the dynamic market value in an economy 
       is not statically measureable; or rather, a static measurement upon
       a dynamic system only yields a parametric projection upon that
       system: one that is space-time constrained.

       An example here is determining the dynamic power requirements
       of some electronic circuit based upon the power requirements 
       of the parts. This is done all the time macroscopically in
       classical electronics, but in a quantum physical sense, it 
       apparently cannot be done. Why ? 

       The electronic circuit is inherently space-time constrained, 
       but the quantum "circuit" is not. The quantum circuit utilizes 
       the idea of infinite virtual space (or identically "virtual memory", 
       in quantum computation) in terms of the infinite Hilbert space 
       which is often employed to define it's operating environment of
       abstract wavefunctions. These wavefunctions _can be_ like the market
       of a florishing economy in that they do not collapse systemically,
       even though subsystemically a measurement may be made upon them 
       resulting in a spatial-temporal (localized) constraint (collapse); 
       this is a quantum measurement without collapsing the systemic wavefunctions:
       an "interaction-free" or "quantum non-demolition" measurement.

       It may often be said metaphorically, that in quantum physics, 
       any measurement destroys its entire market economy 
       (of superposed wavefunctions) or: 

               "In quantum economics, no one can sell anything without
                a resulting economic depression."

       Of course we know, this isn't always true. It is true that if
       we release the energy of a laser we can release it all at once
       totally destroying its energy economy, but we can also release 
       a laser's energy continuously. The power output of a pulsed 
       laser is considerably larger than a continuously discharged
       laser with the same pumping energy because the energy is
       pooled or damned before being released like a tidal wave.

       Similarly the pressure of a phonograph needle is considerable
       compared to the same weight weight distributed over a wider
       Energy is conserved in these cases, it is the power which
       changes. The funny thing though is that power can be negative.
       Power is usually measured in positive watts and most watt-meters
       reflect this. It is rare that the power company installs a 
       watt-meter which records the negative power generated in
       a solar home. As a consumer society, we are tuned-in to the
       idea that power is always a positive value to be consumed.

       The corresponding idea of negative energy is even less intuitive   
       and especially so because it leads to the idea that positive
       energy and negative energy might be superposed to yield
       no energy at all. Such an idea seems to violate the conservation
       of energy law and even logic in paradoxes like the immovable object
       meeting the irresistable force. 

       It often seems the ideas of energy, power etc are not well-founded.
       An example is two equal and opposite forces acting on some point in space.
       These forces may seem to expend no energy and yet what distinguishes
       this from no forces at all acting on that point ? They both appear
       to be in equilibrium yet the 'stability' of the former is less than
       that of the later ? Without measuring pressure,... we say it's 
       probability for abrupt change is much higher. It has stored 
       the energy in its equilibrium and therefore has potential 
       energy. Potential energy, unlike kinetic energy, is static
       and yet our notion of energy usually employs the idea of motion,
       even the units of energy contain time, so the idea of potential
       energy as static is somewhat at odds with the more dynamic
       or kinetic energy we usually talk about.

       The idea of superposed energy seems common place in terms 
       of dividing potential and kinetic energy. 

       Kinetic energy is relative and its definition is dynamic.
       Just as reflected color is dynamic and filtered color
       is static, kinetic energy is a dynamic superposition (like stocks)
       while potential energy is statically filterable and accountable
       (like pennies).
   Organic Economies
       liquidation, speculation, credit, interest, ... in life economies     

[1] Saussure, Course in General Linguistics
[2] Somehat newer concepts like that of negative energy, the 
    Cassimir effect, zero-point energy, non-linear effects... 
    defy the current understanding of energy. This largely 
    it seems is due to problems with the coherent understanding
    of the difference between ideas of "real" and "virtual" 
    in various models as well as the ideas of positive
    and negative probabilities.