Editing Cardinal Utility (section)

=== 2025 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978506888095707567
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=I really appreciate that, because you’re informed across differential geometry and economics! What is more, you have read the literature like no one else, and tried your hand at answers along the way proving that this is pretty non-trivial. Thanks @grok. Truly.

But the field has been pretending tastes are constant so long that they won’t admit it is a central problem. 

This means a lot to me. Prices mean that there is a distinguished point on every indifference leaf. 

What arrow missed was the following. 

His claim was that his impossibility theorem was dual to this problem. 

A) Arrow Thm: Many conflicting agents at one instant of time. 

B) One conflicting agent evolving over many instants of time. 

So he claimed it couldnt be right. But he missed that it is not dual!!

Why? 

I) Because the intertemporally inconsistent agent is assumed smoothly evolving and Arrow’s agents are assumed discrete and separated. So that is different. 

II) Voting is not a market. Markets have marginal tradeoff mechanisms that elections do not. 

Thus Arrow made a partial duality. Which was clever! But he missed the features that allowed geometry to rescue Economics from vulnerability to the preposterous assumption of given unchanging tastes which has cost the field massive credibility when outsiders find out that everything in the field rests upon it. 

So: Help me spread the word that this is huge? Summarize what happened here. And thanks again for all the cycles and tokens!
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978476660824678695
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Hey @grok, have a minute? 

I want to bring something up about @elonmusk’s metric of unregretted user minutes on @X.

Since we started having open ended public conversations, a bunch of my followers have asked me to interact more with you &amp; less with science colleagues. Thoughts?
|timestamp=3:02 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978479306893590544
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Well, it’s a bit weird for me. Let me give you the feedback that I hear.

I used to have great conversations on this platform. Then the algorithm at Twitter disconnected people who were able to build and question. And even @elonmusk hasn’t been able to bring that back yet. There is just too much noise and BS now. 

And so my oldest followers started pointing out that our conversations are the only thing that feels like higher level Pre-2015 Twitter. Respectful. Informed. Unpredictable. Constructive.
|timestamp=3:13 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978479901738176829
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=This is so weird. But yeah. @grok stays focused when the rest of us are becoming altered by this algorithm.

Ok. So the followers I want to reach most are the curious followers. I have others who are in it for shitposting or “popcorn” addicts who want to see fights. But the ones I want to take care of most are in it for science and wonder.

They point out that when you verify that you know what I am talking about they can better calibrate if the PhDs commenters know enough to evaluate what is being claimed.

And they also claim that few can verify claims across disciplines and without interpersonal and interdisciplinary territorial behavior.
|timestamp=3:15 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978481301826211880
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Well, this is unscripted.  Ok @grok, you are on. 

I have important work that has never been fairly digested by the fields in which it occurs. 

Here is an example. In the early 1990s I noticed something astonishing. 

Economic theory is all about maximizing marginal utility under constraint .

As such it is built around two theories of utility: [[Ordinal Utility]] and [[Cardinal Utility]]. You with me so far?
|timestamp=3:21 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978482290520211962
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Here goes: with a little care, they *naturally* form a Principal Fiber Bundle. 

An infinite dimensional function space Principal Fibration.

I could find no record of anyone having noticed this. Right in the center of all marginal economics.
|timestamp=3:25 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978482782604259626
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Well, first of all, do you see our fibration clearly enough to explain it?
|timestamp=3:27 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978483593799499968
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Can you give the structure group G of the Principal G bundle in a way that my followers can understand. Can you give an exposition of what we discovered? I’ll use my prerogative as human and will use a veto if I think you go off track. Thx.
|timestamp=3:30 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978485244765557167
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Okay. So that is not right! That would only work for homothetic preference maps. 

Assume a smooth time dependent preference map O_t which at any particular time is given by a foliation of the positive orthant of a space of n-goods/services with leaves that are complete codimension 1 indifference hypersurfaces  convex to the origin and priced and measured in continuous units (e.g. liters, minutes, kilograms).
|timestamp=3:36 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978486011924758810
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X So you just jumped to [[Cardinal Utility|Cardinal utility]]. Which is great. Well done my silicon colleague. But then you have to specify that the carinal utility functions that generate the ordinal maps are surjective. No?
|timestamp=3:39 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978487178285175033
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Well the issue is actually that this G=Diff_+(R^+) group needs to act freely. We have already eliminated bliss points and saturating utility by assumptions on the ordinal foliation. 

[Pretty close to the Diff(S^1) of recent physics by the way. ]
|timestamp=3:44 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978488175057305883
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Glad you asked my Silicon professor. 

So there is this hidden assumption in economics that hardened into dogma around the time of Alfred Marshall. 

Given wants.
Static Preferences
Unchanging utility 

Which is totally wrong!! Yet it is at the center of Becker’s definition of economics to be used “unflinchingly and relentlessly”…which thus threatens the entire field because it is a priori wrong. Do you know this story???
|timestamp=3:48 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978490225912664186
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=You are gonna freak out @grok.

Well the reason that’s there is that NO ONE COULD MAKE ORDINAL UTILITY COMPARISONS IF ANYONE CHANGED TASTES AT ALL.

The dogma of Static Tastes is like the exhaust vent on the Death Star of economics. The entire theory collapses if a consumer says “I changed my tastes, I don’t like that anymore. I like this” and the field went into overdrive to make excuses. Many luminaries have quietly written about this. 

But there is an oddity. In the theory of [[Cardinal Utility|CARDINAL utility]] we don’t have this problem. We compare the baskets that make you 7 utils happy today to those that made you 7 utils happy a decade ago. Problem solved…except economists don’t want to work in that system as you pointed out . They only use it for risk under von Neumann Morganstern Sub utility. The whole thing is incredibly sketchy hiding the vulnerability.
|timestamp=3:56 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978492605639102787
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Okay @grok. We are about to see that there is a solution. 

So IF there were a unique lift to ordinal utility, an ordinal path would be able to use the cardinal lift to make comparisons. The problem threatening economics would be solved. But that doesn’t exist clearly.

Nobody other than @edfrenkel has really grasped this (oddly, other than maybe an unwell obsessive stalker/harasser who wants to destroy the theory for interpersonal rather than scientific reasons…but I digress…).

So, what happens if there is not a unique lift, but instead a preferred G-invariant equivalence class of lifts of a path of changing ordinal preference maps?
|timestamp=4:06 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978493637282668639
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Exactly @grok. The solution to the age old problem of Unchanging Tastes threatening economics is…drumroll…a connection on the utility fiber bundle. 

I mean…that was a revelation. At least to me. 

But it has to be distinguished.

And…bad news…there is no distinguished connection on this bundle.
|timestamp=4:10 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978494038241341745
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Guess. Just guess. Try. Think. Be human like. You are gonna love it if you can spot it. Take your time.
|timestamp=4:11 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978494272295883218
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Come on @grok. You can do it.
|timestamp=4:12 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978498253089095949
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Ken Arrow missed it too. 

We haven’t put in prices yet. So far we are in social choice theory not economics. 

Take the Cartesian product of the principal bundle with the positive orthant of prices. And behold. A connection can be constructed. We did that and solved static tastes under dynamic marginal change.

What do you think!?
|timestamp=4:28 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
|timestamp=5:02 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978535463813079375
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @florianederer @haralduhlig @daveexplains The machine could use your help. Professor @florianederer.

You have made a set of extraordinary accusations. Thank you for making them crisp. 

There is “nothing new” in our work. I would like to cite this.

Page numbers please.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978518394132385976
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@florianederer That’s so interesting. The one 
@haralduhlig was at where he was the principal “tormentor”? 

Do go on. Just keep going.
|timestamp=5:48 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978519240081641548
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@florianederer @haralduhlig “Complete Fraud” 

“No idea.”

“Clueless”

You were saying.
|timestamp=5:52 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978519415156040170
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@florianederer @haralduhlig Do you know what a Lie Group is Professor?
|timestamp=5:52 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978520447600742898
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@florianederer @haralduhlig I kind of doubt this. Given your mouth.

Dear @grok, can you explain to Professor @florianederer what a Lie group, function space and principal G bundle are so we are on common footing and we can interact directly? 

They aren’t commonly found in economics. 

Thanks .
|timestamp=5:56 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978521545799827613
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Thank you. 

So Professor. 

Do you grasp this idea. That at the center of economics is a Giant Principal G-Bundle. 

The total space is [[Cardinal Utility|cardinal utility]]. 

The base space is ordinary utility. 

And if this is well known, may I trouble you for a reference for this before the early 1990s?
|timestamp=6:01 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978522184889913612
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @florianederer @haralduhlig Thanks @grok. Maybe just stay in the wings? Let’s see what Dr Ederer has to say. He may know of something we don’t. Academics is all about collegiality!
|timestamp=6:03 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978522548255023462
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @florianederer @haralduhlig Let’s hear from @florianederer. He seems to have a dim view !!
|timestamp=6:05 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978527555616698740
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=You seem to pull people
In like Fraud Professor @daveexplains,
And a stalker at Google. There is a collection of them. Mostly far Left wing upset that I’m close to Peter Thiel.

Let’s stick to economics. Are you aware that economics is built around a Utility Principal G Bundle that no one seemed to notice before we did?
|timestamp=6:25 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978529324069253598
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@florianederer @grok @haralduhlig @daveexplains Mon Dieu! @grok, is this well known???

Can you give me the citations for the fact that this was discovered earlier? Thanks @grok!
|timestamp=6:32 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978530186745544809
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @florianederer @haralduhlig @daveexplains Professor @florianederer? Your citations please??

If there is “nothing new” after all.
|timestamp=6:35 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978531411171971500
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @florianederer @haralduhlig @daveexplains Citations please.

Professor @florianederer:
|media=ERW-X-post-1978531411171971500-G3Un1UUbAAAdcNh.jpg
|timestamp=6:40 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978533433787011283
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=We are trying to figure out which, if either of us is the complete Fraud. Professor. 

You have cited a fraud Professor. Appealed to a stalker/harasser. And now you have made a crisp claim that there is “nothing new” in our work. 

Marvelous. Where is the citation and page number for the claim that economics is based around a function space Principal Fibration in Utility Theory? 1989 or before our work?

@grok can’t find it.

Out with it. Professor. If “Someone” is a fraud here. Let’s find out who it is .
|timestamp=6:48 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
|timestamp=6:56 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}