We don't use the term "capital" but maybe this excerpt helps, from royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10....
Our views on the role of models, meaning axioms or assumptions, are laid out on p.59 of the book.
ergodicityeconomics.com/an-introduct...

That’s true, it’s not exactly the Ising model. Closer to a lattice gas, which can be mapped to a spin-1 Ising model…
Upshot: statistical mechanicians studied variants of these systems, around the time when Schelling proposed his model.

I was also just thinking about ontology -- the study of being and existence -- in the context of economics.

Curiously, a number of the topics on your list are chapters in the EE textbook. Plenty of overlap.

That's rather lovely in a non-trivial way!
At the launch party last week, we also had a big book for big ideas.

6/
And, of course, have a look at our textbook, where we develop Ergodicity Economics, from the ground up. A fully functioning formal alternative to orthodox economic theory.
ergodicityeconomics.com/publications/

5/
If you find this as interesting as I do, come along next week to listen to one of the authors, Duncan James, present the book and recent updates, in our EE seminar series:

ergodicityeconomics.com/event/semina...

4/
That was established in an admirable effort by 4 economists, experts in expected-utility theory, who reviewed 8 decades of empirical work, concluding:
"The power to predict out-of-sample is in the poor to non-existent range."

See "Risky Curves"
routledge.com/Risky-Curves...

3/
What does that mean?
I would say it means that this core concept of orthodox economics -- utility -- is meaningless and misleading.
But don't take my word for it - this is known: empirically, expected-utility theory and its descendants, like prospect theory etc., don't work.

2/
I've written a blog post about this with Ollie Hulme, where we spell out the mathematics and give you an interactive app.
Try it out for yourself. Maximizing expected utility destroys actual utility.
ergodicityeconomics.com/2025/05/28/exp

15 years ago I started SAM, the Society for the Advancement of Mediocrity.
It went alright, and I think it was an ok idea.

And please stay in touch and tell us what you find.
ergodicityeconomics.eo.page/4ct3k

Most of all: enjoy!
This is creative, living, science, and I think the fun we had while writing the book shines through on the page.

The result is a book that will enable its readers to go far beyond it. It's not a collection of papers, nor a comprehensive survey. It's a launch pad. Absorb what's in this book and take it in entirely new directions.

Then move to collections of individuals, then let them interact. At each level our thinking is informed by the ergodicity problem: how does our perspective change when we move from a statistical-ensemble perspective to a temporal perspective?

We start by introducing tools we found to be useful over the years, wherever they came from. Next we think about a single person making trivial decisions, then increase the complexity of the decisions one step at a time. We create a temporal context, and add ignorance.

And we ended up with a delightful book. A textbook that you can actually read because it outlines the beginning of a new field. It's deliberate, systematic, and maximally simple.
ergodicityeconomics.com/publications/

We unified, simplified, and systematized.

We collected earlier work by researchers who had also asked the ergodicity question, explicitly or implicitly. We traced this problem back over the centuries, found relevant tricks in books on physics, signal processing, economics, mathematics.
ergodicityeconomics.com/2024/02/05/e...

The ergodicity question remained the key to it all: do we think of randomness as variation across time or as variation across multiple systems, real or imagined?

So we called what we were doing "Ergodicity economics."
www.nature.com/articles/s41...