Sure, but now we’re playing a game of semantics.
We could just as easily say that no one 100% understands physics because of the complexity involved, the puzzle of quantum gravity, string theory, etc etc.
But an equally true statement can be made that we do understand physics quite well because we have computers and airplanes and satellites.
This is what I mean about being reductive: if we call all of economics a lovecraftian bolus of incomprehensibility then we’re voluntarily blinding ourselves to a lot of other things.
ancepsinfans / zach
npub1n7…5n987
2023-05-18 05:24:55
in reply to nevent1q…3u6p
Author Public Key
npub1n7rf4qudv5xc8j70zku09cmxhp9nklmxl9uf4acefas2p07ha3lq75n987Published at
2023-05-18 05:24:55Event JSON
{
"id": "8c1191f52a3c4ccce6908e7341fec40a67e43aba20e5b4e3ba2ba75664e5136a",
"pubkey": "9f869a838d650d83cbcf15b8f2e366b84b3b7f66f9789af7194f60a0bfd7ec7e",
"created_at": 1684387495,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"66bc3684c1eace77b93cb5b6525d685b646439fedf5222303d65a5f41e1b8f9a"
],
[
"e",
"e6a8a2a782156766974be895ada175bb4172e099537b319e823bf800d995f73d"
],
[
"p",
"1bc70a0148b3f316da33fe3c89f23e3e71ac4ff998027ec712b905cd24f6a411"
],
[
"p",
"d411848a42a11ad2747c439b00fc881120a4121e04917d38bebd156212e2f4ad"
]
],
"content": "Sure, but now we’re playing a game of semantics. \n\nWe could just as easily say that no one 100% understands physics because of the complexity involved, the puzzle of quantum gravity, string theory, etc etc. \n\nBut an equally true statement can be made that we do understand physics quite well because we have computers and airplanes and satellites. \n\nThis is what I mean about being reductive: if we call all of economics a lovecraftian bolus of incomprehensibility then we’re voluntarily blinding ourselves to a lot of other things.",
"sig": "8c6c8845976a66d6c483b4fa1aa1a678f40b05d1523baf7e1a7549345a5293226e90ee8d1a93b40417bde4c0e10816fecaaa111b7e7d8fdb95c6a1efe7af03c3"
}