This is a rather deep and subtle issue. As a few days ago I quoted Einstein's paper on the effectiveness of mathematics in physics, giving it more thought one can see some hints in there too. But without sufficient reflection on these topics, it is very ineffective trying to gain these insights.
My attention was mostly on how he argued the effectiveness of math. In fact, I didn't entirely agree with him.
Regarding what you say here, I see your point. I think the notion 經濟人 can hardly be mathematicalized precisely because it isn't a 物貭(色) since it involves the human Psyche. However, an economy as a whole heavily involves物貭 , so mathematics still has some minor success in economics. Yet in disciplines like psychology math is often a foreigner. This was how my friend, a psychiatrist, asked me every once a while: Is a mathematicalization of psychology possible? , and my answer was always a No.
The problem with modern economics is , first, you can't find good quality axioms. Second, even if you find quality axioms, many factors in an economy are still outside these axioms, namely those belong to the human spyche.
【从此空空道人因空见色,由色生情,传情入色,自色悟空,遂易名为情僧,改《石头记》为《情僧录》。】
佛学里总不容易理解的术语可能是“空”,最容易被误解的术语可能是“色”。这里将“空”暂放一边,简单说一下“色”。
佛法里的“色”最基本的意思或者说狭义的“色”是指眼睛看到的东西,如青山、红花、江河等等眼睛能观察到的有形有色彩的东西,故名之为“色”。在这个基础上继续扩展就是广义的“色”,用来指宇宙中的物质,包括人肉眼看不见的其他物质。广义的“色”包涵了六根所对应的六尘,即:眼所对应的色,耳所对应的声,鼻所对应的香,舌所对应的味,身所对应的触,意所对应的法。总之,佛法里的“色”一般是指宇宙中的物质。
所以,像數學、思想、思維等等也是色,不光是物质。
This is a rather deep and subtle issue. As a few days ago I quoted Einstein's paper on the effectiveness of mathematics in physics, giving it more thought one can see some hints in there too. But without sufficient reflection on these topics, it is very ineffective trying to gain these insights.
所以,靠逻辑达到真理是不可能的,因为建立在经验基础上的逻辑,会因为经验前提的缺陷和不完美而最终漏出破绽。其实经济学是个最好的例子。西方经济学是建立经济人假设之上的学问,虽然后来很多理论通过数理逻辑进行论证和推导,但因为经济人这个假设前提的缺陷,导致经济学总是漏洞百出。同样的问题还有均衡市场的假设,同样过于简单化了。而马克思经济学的假设则是决定商品价值的是内含的劳动。这个也无法被证明,所以也是个假设,不过这个假设有利于劳工阶级,所以被西方经济学界称为偏向劳工的经济学。
My attention was mostly on how he argued the effectiveness of math. In fact, I didn't entirely agree with him.
Regarding what you say here, I see your point. I think the notion 經濟人 can hardly be mathematicalized precisely because it isn't a 物貭(色) since it involves the human Psyche. However, an economy as a whole heavily involves物貭 , so mathematics still has some minor success in economics. Yet in disciplines like psychology math is often a foreigner. This was how my friend, a psychiatrist, asked me every once a while: Is a mathematicalization of psychology possible? , and my answer was always a No.
How? I notice that you sometimes make decisively vague comments.
The problem with modern economics is , first, you can't find good quality axioms. Second, even if you find quality axioms, many factors in an economy are still outside these axioms, namely those belong to the human spyche.
就不会把经济学奖颁给你。
反倒要取销这个奖。
因为如你所说,经济学根本无法成为一个独立学科:
“many factors in an economy are still outside these axioms, namely those belong to the human spyche.”