> The free market can't be always pushing down the price of all goods (measured in other goods), that's a logical impossibility.
And yet that seems to be precisely what has happened.
However, supposing we hold tech progress and capital investment constant, then yes, we'll reach a steady state in w...(read more)
It seems like you have just reinvented the criticism "if you can extract almost all the value from each transaction (aka 'exploitation'), you will shortly be rich". Well, yes, but the point is that a market with competition generally prevents you from doing that. As someone pointed out, if you make ...(read more)
It's disrespectful to people who don't have any food to eat, much less play with. Food is important, and this fact is easily forgotten.
Idea 2 seems very vague. Can you give an example of how I would use it?
> There seems to be some implicit premise along these lines: "When contemplating the 'arrow of time' we should not consider anything that doesn't explicitly appear in the laws of physics." but I don't see any reason to accept such a premise.
I would say "explicitly or implicitly", and then it seems...(read more)
> I don't understand what, if anything, you would consider non-arbitrary.
I'm not sure this is actually an important disagreement; I'm ok with dropping it if you want. However, you are the one who suggested that entropy could be calculated in a non-arbitrary way; but I don't think you've offered an...(read more)
> Yes, a notion of entropy depends on some state of knowledge and observational ability. But that doesn't mean it depends on picking ours in particular, and there are not-so-arbitrary ways to do it.
I don't understand how your suggested calculation is non-arbitrary; you still seem to be picking som...(read more)
> I keep coming back to entropy because the asymmetry in entropy is one of the things that needs explaining
Again, why bother with entropy as such? Just say "the initial conditions need explaining" and be done.
> Given any criterion for distinguishing macrostates, you can (in principle) compute e...(read more)
> If weak parity violation really explains anything here, I don't see what. Do you have any grounds for suspecting that weak parity violation explains why we see a very dense low-entropy universe in one direction and a very sparse high-entropy universe in the other? Do you have any grounds for suspe...(read more)
> Reversed spatial particles look the same to us as unreversed
No they don't; the neutrinos would change their handedness. (So would our amino acids, but that wouldn't affect their functioning, so far as I know, since everything else would as well.) And chiral-reversed neutrinos don't interact with...(read more)