"Julio Huato" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:29 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The first thing to note is that y is actually a function of time and should > > be denoted as y(t). > Yes, y is a function of many variables. I meant that to be implicit. I meant that y should be considered a set of multiple variables. > By the way, "time" t is usually a catch-all term for other variables. I don't see how "time" t is a catch-all term for other variables. Time is a philosophical primitive that should mean the same to all of us. > > IMHO, society is sufficiently complex in the real world that y(t) will > > never > > be identical for two different times. > Insofar as you keep calling it society (and not something else), it > seems as if you recognize it before and after as the same thing, > except that somehow different. A difference or change when the > quality (society) is maintained is called "quantitative," meaning that > it does not entail the disappearance of society, its replacement by > some non-society. A society is just a part of the universe that is of interest to us which means that it is made up of people. > > What we are doing is abstracting society y(t) to a simplified model (in our > > case > > to Marx's labor theory of value (LTV)). In the case of environmentalists > > they can abstract to the amount of pollutants and natural resources. > Yes, I did not mean that y was a simple object. Mathematically, you > can make y as complex as you wish. Still, the complexity of actual > societies will be greater. Yes we can construct more complex models of society, but a simple model may be all that we need. -- Ron
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
