Response to Frank Slater, held in Moderation.

Animated GIF-downsized_large (5)

February 2, 2019 at 1:23 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

“The upper output rate boundary occurs when all the effort available for tool making and
maintenance is fully committed to maintaining the tools already in use; no further effort is
available to make more.”

Take this part here frank which I think is the meat of what you are trying and failing to say in your paper.

In a proper economics rooted in real empirically defined and testable units of Value/Utility what this would say is.
Where the Energy cost of Energy exceeds the Net Energy Surplus no further production surplus can accrue.
Dr Tim Morgan Explains Energy Cost of Energy here.

Vaclav Smil covers the lower bounds of production dealing in calorific value of human labour

paraphrase here on my blog

Box 1.10
Calculating the net energy cost of human labor
There is no universally accepted way to express the energy cost of human
labor, and calculating the net energy cost is perhaps the best choice: it is a
person’s energy consumption above the existential need that would have to be
satisfied even if no work were done. This approach debits human labor with
its actual incremental energy cost. Total energy expenditure is a product of
basal (or resting) metabolic rate and physical activity level (TEE = BMR × PAL),
and the incremental energy cost will obviously be the difference between TEE
and BMR. The BMR of an adult man weighing 70 kg would be about 7.5 MJ/d,
and for a 60 kg woman it would be about 5.5 MJ/day. If we assume that hard
work will raise the daily energy requirement by about 30%, then the net
energy cost would be about 2.2 MJ/day for men and 1.7 MJ/day for women,
and hence I will use 2 MJ/day in all approximate calculations of net daily.

Frank, my main thing is sound modelling and FFT analysis so the maths is meat and drink to me I find Climate models extremely limited as they too are trying to prove they are right without looking at all the available evidence.

I think your paper is Naive, thats only my opinion but applied maths and engineering has to stand up to test in the field, what Tetlock says about experts

Incompleteness, boundary conditions or Limits.
IF. 0 = True , IF. 1 = False, IF. REF= 1:10 otherwise GO TO Menu?

( See Bull Shit Derrida)

“Of course it’s funny, but not out loud!”

A CLASSIFYING ALGEBRA FOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS J¨urgen Fuchs X DESY Notkestraße 85, D – 22603 Hamburg Christoph Schweigert CERN CH – 1211 Gen`eve 23
(MetaPhysics ?)Or (Physics?).
Abstract We introduce a finite-dimensional algebra that controls the possible boundary conditions of a conformal field theory. For theories that are obtained by modding out a Z2 symmetry (corresponding to a so-called Dodd-type, or half-integer spin simple current, modular invariant), this classifying algebra contains the fusion algebra of the untwisted sector as a subalgebra. Proper treatment of fields in the twisted sector, so-called fixed points, leads to structures that are intriguingly close to the ones implied by modular invariance for conformal field theories on closed orientable surfaces. CERN-TH/97-215 August 1997

Timoshenko beam with uncertainty on the boundary conditions
Thiago G. RittoI; Rubens SampaioII; Edson CataldoIII IIEmeritus Member, ABCM,, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro – PUC-Rio, Mechanical Engineering Department, 22453-900 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, Fluminense Federal University – UFF, Applied Mathematics Department, Graduate Program in Telecommunications Engineering, 24020-140 Niterói, RJ, Brazil
(Physics?).(MetaPhysics ?)


February 2, 2019 at 4:36 pm

You may have skimmed my paper but you have clearly failed to understand it. You have not dealt with its predictions being falsifiable but that they conform to the empirical evidence. That they predict new relationships which Lakatos would find highly significant. So you have failed to deal with the paper and apparently reiterate your failed arguments.



Frank, I think the production function is absurd and as part of the general comedy, your paper adds to the general absurdity.
The emperor’s new clothes is an apt allegory for the stupidity and hubris of practitioners of Economics in the main stream.
Enjoy the rest of the weekend,

February 2, 2019 at 5:56 pm

I must make clear I am NOT an economist. I am an engineer. What axiom would challenge? The only ones used by me are the definitions of productivity and of technical progress. If you can NOT prove those to be wrong then the mathematics leads to a single inexorable conclusion.


Technical progress is a subjective ill defined genrality , it is psuedo scientific, the measure of productivity is possibly not quite as bad but if it is measured in Monetary measures even if based upon levelised costs Monetary units are arbitrary and meaningless. There is no scientific rigour in the generalised production function it is pseudo scientific and based upon a belief system and as such is meta physical or Faith based not empirically grounded. All of the material I have pointed to makes this clear. All your paper does Frank is compound the circular reasoning as the whole edifice of the production function is built upon shifting sands.



2 thoughts on “Response to Frank Slater, held in Moderation.

  1. ´´if it were easy to set standards for judging judgment that would be honoured across the opinion spectrum and not glibly dismissed as another sneaky effort to seize the high ground for a favourite cause, someone would have patented the process long ago.´´
    Tetlock, Philip E. (2005), Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?

    ´´If we want realistic odds on what will happen next, coupled to a willingness to admit mistakes, we are better off turning to experts who embody the intellectual traits of Isaiah Berlin’s prototypical fox—those who “know many little things,” draw from an eclectic array of traditions, and accept ambiguity and contradiction as inevitable features of life—than we are turning to Berlin’s hedgehogs—those who “know one big thing,” toil devotedly within one tradition, and reach for formulaic solutions to ill-defined problems.3´´


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s