In all fields of science, we use models to represent reality. They are sketches of the properties of, and relations within, a certain system. And if it is a good model, it also contains relations with other systems. Yet even if this has been taken care of, those relations with other systems may be based on assumptions. A good example is the postulate in economic science, economic subjects act rationally. This assumption about human behaviour has been proven wrong long time ago.
Then how can those models still work, even if in the context of the totality of systems they operate within, some basic assumptions are false? The answer to that question is actually very simple. They work, because we have been taught to believe in the working of their laws. It can be proven, certain laws found in economics would simply cease to exist, as soon as people would stop believing in the effects of a certain decision, as those effects only appear because peoples decisions themselves are the cause. We seem to forget it is us, who made a lot of causality in the world, not nature. If you have a small amount of some valuable assets, and there are many people wanting them, you will ask a higher price than when only few people want them. Yet if you’d change the motivation to earn as much money as you can, and instead just give those assets away, valuable as they might be, the economic function between demand and price will collapse.
Physicists may think, their field of science is an exception, and is clear from human stories and laws, as per definition it is their job to find laws of nature. Yet this doesn’t guarantee, they do. They too, use mathematical models that become stories in themselves. Then we may read an article with the caption ‘Electrons not following the laws of nature’, while the true meaning of course is ‘Electrons not following the rules of the physicists mathematical models.’ As Einstein writes in his essay ‘Physics and reality’: ‘One may however easily be led into the error of believing that these notions, whose origin is forgotten, are necessary and unalterable accompaniments to our thinking, and this error may constitute a serious danger to the progress of science.’
So we live in a world full of illusions, made up from stories and human laws that originate basically from our average motivation; we are the cause of their existence. The more our own motivation differs from the average, the more alienated we might feel, surrounded by systems that do not make much sense to us. Then it seems that first when a disaster hits, and we are united in a common motivation to prevent such disaster from ever happening again, are we able to build a society in which we can live with a true sense of belonging.
But why would we wait for a disaster?
Scientists are striving for a theory of everything, that aims to put together existing stories and human laws in one coherent new story, but that is not what we need. We need to see through them and start from a blank sheet on which we note nothing but the laws of nature. Or is it impossible for us to enter this world beyond our human made laws, blinded as we are by our own concepts and inventions? It seems to be increasingly difficult.
Of course we achieved a lot, with our stories and models. In many ways, the quality of life and the opportunities for people to lead a meaningful life in safety and prosperity have improved, though the world faces problems in many places too. But how about the long term? Aren’t many systems doomed to collapse, built on the wrong fundaments as they are? For how long will they ‘work’? As to physics, can we be sure experiments are truly safe, given the holes in the theories? Do we know enough about the side-effects of technological applications, did we learn from the disasters that followed from, for example, playing with nucleair energy? Physics and economics are interrelated as in finding the cheapest applications for maximum material benefit; that is how it always has been. It is for example the reason why we still drive cars on dirty energy. When will we change this relation into finding the safest applications for maximum wellbeing of all life?
To get out of this labyrinth, the academic world needs to define a context for scientists to operate within, a basic architectural design that provides fundamental, realistic relations between all fields of science, and is the guidance for addressing motivation, scope, purpose, application and implementation in all scientific research. We need coherent solutions, and we need priorities as to what has to find its way into our daily lifes fast, and what can wait.
And we simply have to find a way to ethical solutions. Ethical solutions per definition are closer to how things in reality are. This is because ethical solutions address the ‘why’ question, which is the question that gives insight in the ultimate nature of things, and at the same time addresses motivation. Only when motivation is sound, may we hope to find solutions not dependent on blind obedience to existing dogma, and not dependent on emotions such as greed and pride. Changing the motivation into what can simply be described as concern for all life, as each life/all that lives is ultimately what sustains us all, collapses human made laws to replace them with laws that are more in accordance with (the) nature (of humans). At the same time, it would boost progress in science, as we avoid the trap as Einstein described. Combined, it can only have a positive effect on our economy as well.
So what are we waiting for?