This originally came from a response I was typing up to the comment on my previous post, so I just made a new post.
Are geometry and praxeology comparable?
I think it has more to do with the fact they aren’t strictly comparable in the sense I put forth in my previous post. The fact the universe has ANY geometrical order (whether Euclidean or not) is a categorical claim which may be more comparable to the category of action.
One confusion I think needs clearing up first is whether praxeology is an actual axiomatic system as put forth by perhaps more confused thinkers such as Hoppe and Rothbard (Mises never mentioned the word “axiom”). Any geometrical system may be conjured up when creating axioms such as lines and points. However, is action really conjured up inside the mind like lines and points in geometry? Or is it a category that exists in the mind since birth? Or is it strictly observed by thinking about it? How can we observe by thinking if it doesn’t already exist in the mind?
Regardless of the answer to these thorny questions, for some reason, I know people do things and there are certain implications to the fact that people do things. This is not an axiom, but a commentary on the nature of “doing”. How else would you “do” without “doing?”
In geometry we may conceive different systems that may or may not apply to reality with perfect accuracy. I don’t know if there is a way to conceive of action besides a binary means and ends spectrum. Following this, there are no “axioms” because I didn’t “create” the means and ends spectrum. This is already implied by action in itself. The questions of whether matter, energy, motion, lines, points, or consciousness exist belong to metaphysics. Consciousness implies acting like how a structural universe implies geometry.
There is nothing ideological about the category of structure in the universe, just as there is nothing ideological about the category of action. If there is a consciousness in the human mind then performing actions is its physiological function. Psychology nor cognitive science has yet succeeded in explaining the source or nature of this power.
Just because Euclidean geometry was not perfectly accurate does not mean they dropped the whole category of ANY existence of a universal geometry. The introduction of dark matter in physics have not caused them to drop the science of physics. To do so would be to purposely bury your head inside the ground and ignore reality.