Is it incomprehensible?….I mean really?….. to the point of only being understandable in the philosophical models of mathematics? Where a beautiful elegant equation starts to obtain primacy over our notion of a reality out there.

I rail against our hubris witnessed by every statement of “we’re nearly there….I mean this time we are onto it….really”.

Does our detached cleverness as  passive observers looking outside-in really matter in the scheme of things?…I mean the big scheme of things…..that thing called a complex system……you know that ugly environment of the fat tail and uncertainty….where I/we can pluck it and it can move a little or a lot dependent on how we pluck it? Are we missing the important clue that we as observers and participants shape that system and that system shapes us.

Last I hear we were now down to a quadrillion different solutions of that very elegant model called string theory in what is it now, 10 different dimensions….really…..elegant? Seems like we may have a communication problem……and they (the scientific community) had the audacity to snigger at the lost soul called David Bohm who suggested that perhaps we were looking at things in a reductionist way that might lead to future problems.

I tend to agree. If you start with the assumption of an array of initial states and then project your modelling forward, it is no wonder you end up with a multiverse of possible solutions. Perhaps it is best to start from where we are now and then project backwards before we attempt to go forwards. Our assumption is that it all started out from a Big Bang. That is hardly an information theoretic origin which it needs to be for us to solve this riddle through empiricism. Code crackers tend to start with the code first as opposed to the code last. Perhaps the ‘now’ is the best place to start.

I miss the less expensive world of the thinker and gedanken processes. Bring back Einstein, Bohm, Wheeler, Feynman I cry from the lost wilderness. We need guidance toward a coherent mind. At least the battle back then was always fought in debate and on matters of cogent argument. Now the battlefield is just ‘noise’ from smashing stuff, cold algorithms and the digital clicks of supercomputers where any form of coherence to a rational but emotional mind is lost.

You can stay right over there guys….I mean far away…..and take those quants with you. Go and play with those models and expensive ‘smash’ toys to solve that mystery of the universe from outside-in and then these financial markets, ’cause according to you all the universe doesn’t care what we think….its just data man……and make sure you gloss over those less important realms that allow us to survive, connect, multiply, build, populate and create……you know that silly emotional planet earth stuff with all the ugly bits and pieces.

I prefer to stand on more solid ground. Give me ugly, chest hair a good bass guitar riff and dirt…..I am just not understanding the squeaky clean universe of digital unemotional perfection accompanied by harps and alien opera.

Make sure you don’t get too attached to your models…..as they have a weird way of progressively detaching you from reality.

Let’s take things in baby steps. Yes our mathematical projections will take us into wider uncertain domains as we must expect being participants in a bigger system, but at every juncture, let’s just make sure we can bring it all back to empiricism as there are an infinite array of ways to being ‘not even wrong’.

Empiricism has that sneaky way of at least keeping you within the very broad realm of sanity.

Today we boldly declare with the cocky certainty of an unthankful child  that Einstein in his search for unification was progressively less equipped with brilliance. Perhaps he came to a very real roadblock between classical and non classical domains. A separation of states that simply prevented us from inquiring further.

Perhaps our cleverness is an emergent condition of classicalism itself which prevents us from ever being able to work it all out. If our classical domain all starts with information as it must, for us to be pondering and attempting to interpret this gigantic riddle,  then the dualism of an observer and the observed or a participant and a greater system must always be omnipresent in any classical solution. To assume that it all starts with nothing (being absentia) to becoming a something perhaps is our greatest roadblock of reductionism. Where is the dualism in this statement…..’crickets’. All I hear today is ‘the quantum fluctuation’…..how convenient….. and then the very special condition of inflation  replete with lot’s of dark holes of missing proof……I thought we were always to remain sceptical about special conditions when all about is covariant and connected. Silly me.

Perhaps our solution involves acceptance of a greater system as opposed to an attitude of  ‘never say die we can find the building blocks and create our own universes’.   Perhaps our God is simply that which is incoherent to us and will always be incoherent to us. It took so long to solve the 3 body problem….and yet we are so far ahead in our wisdom *scratches head*. Let’s go back a bit with no normalisations, perturbations or approximations and take it step by step. We seem to have invested a lot of faith in our algorithms….and yet we designed them all?

Trade well and prosper (on this ugly reality we called planet earth  with warts and all and raw emotion) cause the universe in a dualistic dynamic relationship between observer and observed actually might care what we think….despite the bold claims otherwise ….whicih makes it all the more majestic.

Rich B