How is economics relevant to the progression of all matter in the universe? Say you figured out how to “own” all of the matter in the universe, where do you go from there?
It is not possible to own all of the matter in the universe because self-ownership is unalienable, thus, you cannot own other humans.
Not if all “other humans” are dead.
Not if self-ownership is given up (i.e: Death; loss of the decision process)
Besides, I can own their bodies (matter) even if i can’t own their thought process (intangible potential energy)
I know.
Since we’re suppossing ridiculous scenarios, I suppose you have a point.
The only economics that would apply then would be temporal - in other words, how do you value the use of your own time? Since the renewal rate for all other resources is faster than you can use them up then they are, in practice, infinite - and thus, not scarce.
Is all the matter in the universe finite, or is there a continuous creation of matter?
Without human action, there is no economics.
Matter and resources aren’t the same thing. The amount of matter is finite, but we don’t “use up” matter when we use a resource. We simply change the form of it. A resource is a specific configuration of matter. Since there is no reason to believe the processes that brought about the current configurations will stop just because there is only one person left, then you can assume that eventually any resource you change the form of will be renewed.
I know I know I know. But say I owned all the matter that exist this instance, will there be more matter created in the universe tomorrow?
Not if you include aliens.
But would you agree that economics without human action is just physics?
That’s like asking what chemistry is without chemicals. What are you trying to get at?
If we are going on the premise that someone owns all matter, then we have at least and at most (exactly) one person - be it human, alien, whatever.
Will more matter be created? There’s no telling. I suppose that depends on the theory you adopt. As a Christian, I would say that for God to fulfil the promises He has made there has to be more than one person. So He might make more… in which case you no longer own all the matter. But would He take the matter you do own and reform it to make more people, or would He simply create more matter? That’s a choice we can’t predict. Some version of this would probably hold for any theistic religion.
OTOH, if you are a deist, and God, of the sort the Bible describes, doesn’t exist - instead He is simply a creator, and then doesn’t touch the creation, then there would be no change in the universe. Here we can certainly say no new matter will be created.
Lastly, if the atheists are correct, and there is no personal God (ie, everything is natural forces) then there is the question of what nature those forces take, and how broad you are defining ‘universe’. If you don’t adopt multiverse theory, and the universe is singular, then the initial event which created the universe may or may not happen again, so there is simply no telling. OTOH, if multiverse theory is true, then new universes - new matter - is always created… but you don’t own it, because you only own this universe. If you expand your scenario to say you own the whole multiverse, though, then under this scenario, yes, new matter would be created, and it is entirely possible (and likely) new people would be as well, eventually. Probably after you die, though.
That doesn’t necessarily mean matter is always created in different universes of the multiverse. They are just probabilities of our universe, what could’ve happened instead of what has happened here.
But if you did have all the matter in the universe at your disposal, would that make you God? Does control over matter make you a God, or does it require you to create matter?
I suppose that would depend on your definition of God. By my definition, even creating matter doesn’t make you God. But owning all the matter in the universe and controlling it are two different things. Control implies taking action upon something, which requires a given level of technology. But you can homestead something without the technology to control it. For example, I don’t have the technology - or even an idea of how to build it - to create a scoop to harvest matter from a sun. But I can conceive of a way to homestead it, by building a sphere of solar panels around it and harvesting all the energy it produces.
A good point. My view of God is similar to a Sims World player; you don’t control the minds of your people, but you can giveth and taketh and create and destroy their world.
As an addendum to this discussion…
Suppose you owned all matter that actually existed except for that constituting other people’s bodies. If you have the right to evict people from your property, can you evict those you don’t own? Where would they go? If they refuse to leave your property, do you have the right to defend your property by force?
“where do you go from there”
Jokes aside, the real question is where do you go from here. We are either dead or so incalculatedly depended upon you that you can deem us slaves.
I guess the question could be, granting that we are still alive, do we own something that you want i.e. are free will to love you or cherish you, etc. Think of yourself like a god wanting something of free will to love it. The free will is the only thing that is inalienable, or that we own, thus we may trade for it (economics still apply).
It also may be true that you own all matter but don’t have the facilities to transform it (say to cultivate beautiful roses) and thus we may again trade services. Though the latter, it could be assumed that you force us—yet still, you would be unaware of the our abilities
I suppose evicting wouldn’t be a word within your vocabulary, given that it is absurd to believe you can evict someone to somewhere if you own all the somewheres. Maybe replace it with transfer?