>>13478546not entirely
>>13478263anon, let me give you an example of something I have been thinking about for a long time.
Consider the human-like economic actor; a single embodied, materially existing individual with a certain number of desires, who wishes to engage in production and exchange behavior in order to satisfy them. First, putting aside where the desires originate, which is the proper scope of psychology, what can we say about how those desires are organized into an ordered list to be resolved? Second, what can we say about how to form the critical path to maximal desire resolution in shortest time?
Note that these two questions are purely about organization. Now suppose that this human-like actor, along with two others, is placed in a two-dimensional universe with finite piles of resources that each satisfy one of the individual demands, which themselves regenerate at differing rates (like hunger, sleep etc). Even if they can't exchange between each other, how much of their gathering behavior is determined by initial positions? If they can perform simple exchanges, how much does that change their behavior?
What if you allow the actors to begin to strategize?
Mathematical economics will always fail whenever it tries to fit the world into a system of dynamical equations. But when it builds the world anew, layer by layer, object by object, behavior by behavior, then all the patterns, which will be graphs and fucky statistical distributions rather than smooth curves, will become clear.
