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.
pure mathematics physical models
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 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 ?"
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
liquidation, speculation, credit, interest, ... in life economies
 Saussure, Course in General Linguistics
 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.