Philosophy Now Forum

As a way of background, most professional philosophers believe in non-skeptical realism as opposed to other competing views such as external-world skepticism. However, because solipsism and external-world skepticism appear to withstand logical refutation, most professional philosophers do not hold their belief in non-skeptical realism over external-world skepticism with absolute philosophical certitude.

Similar to the issue I discuss below with respect to the source of profits and interest at the macroeconomic level, some scientists and others have cited the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty or indeterminacy in quantum mechanics as support for a belief in solipsism. According to this principle, both the location and momentum of a particular electron cannot be determined at the same time. Due to this lack of understanding and measurement at a basic scientific level, some scientists and others believe that the universe is irrational or unreal. Others, however, respond that epistemological problems should not lead to ontological conclusions.

Likewise, the conundrum in economics as to the source of profits and interest at the macroeconomic level is baffling to economists as a whole. A free paper on this issue, entitled “What is the Source of Profit and Interest? A Classical Conundrum Reconsidered,” by Gunnar Tomasson and Dirk J. Bezemer, dated January 29, 2010, and posted March 11, 2010, can be found online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/21292/. Although I have not exhaustively researched this issue or economists’ attempts to address it, of the explanations I have studied, I believe that the monetary-circuit approach of Professor Louis-Philippe Rochon most plausibly resolves the conundrum by considering that, in firms’ investment cycles, a cash outflow required for the purchase of capital goods and financed by long-term bank loans occurs in the first period of production in the investment cycle while long-term bank loans may be paid back over multiple periods of production until the end of the investment cycle.

Personally, the fact that economists still have not settled the issue of where money for macroeconomic profits and interest comes from leads me to question objective reality in a manner similar to anti-realism. Just as the Heisenberg principle may be fundamental to quantum mechanics, knowing the source of profits and interest at the macroeconomic level appears to get to the heart of the concept of money flow and seems fundamental to economics. In contrast to non-skeptical realism, I believe that this conundrum in economics supports a more “agnostic” view of objective reality, arguably more in line with the views of philosophers Immanuel Kant and David Hume.

I would appreciate any comments of the Philosophy Now forum on this discussion. Thank you.

Well, it's creative and open-minded.

I think your framing is not relevant to the question you are asking.
The condition of the electron in a Heisenberg scenario does not bear of the matter of human economics. Money inhabits the realm of ideas, and social "realities", not the material world of physics.

Whilst a dollar can be an object in reality, it's value qua $1 is not a necessary connection to its physicality. The fact that it is a 'dollar' is about belief, trust, and social conditioning.

AND... I have to say that the article you linked also does not frame the question in your rather idiosyncratic way. And is, in fact, an intellectual history analysis of the profit problem, which I thank you for linking as it is of interests to a critique of Neoliberal economics that I am undertaking.

I think there is a legitimate issue with scientific funding angling towards business, especially the erosion of esoteric research, despite the fact that esoteric research has arrived at some of society's most valuable discoveries. Since most research is aimed at business in the material world, it tends to be materialistic in approach and attitude.

Still, AI is one field where subjectivism is taken seriously.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a simple statement of the bloody obvious and has nothing to with indeterminacy, despite the rampant confusion in the minds of many physicists. It is utterly impossible to specify both the location and the momentum of ANY physical entity at the same time for the simple reason that it can't have both at the same time. Werner clearly didn't understand the concept of momentum, which is defined as a change in location over time.