Now that I have repurposed the role of modern economics pursuant to the rules of nature’s household in one of my previous blogs called Economics Redefined, the challenge in developing its “operating system” is twofold.
The first challenge comes from our limited understanding of how nature works. For example, we still do not know the most fundamental attribute of nature, light. The second challenge is to define a reliable proxy that establishes our role as people, subject to those “laws” of nature.
Everything is relative
This seemingly daunting task of trying to define our role based on such an incomplete and unstable foundation of knowledge is what forces us to appreciate and submit to a relativity theory. Relativity is related to our relative understanding of nature, combined with the inherent relativism of nature itself.
No absolute and static definition and worse formulas can begin to describe the fluent and evolving complexity the multidimensional relativity of nature represents. But that should not stop us in our attempts to develop a reliable proxy, for we have done so before. For example: without knowing what light is, we have created a device that captures (some) light, called a camera.
Our aging theories
Mathematics, statistics, chemistry, behavioral science, theology, etc., are all manmade theories that attempt to describe nature according to our best and most educated guesswork. Time, for example, is yet another dimension in and of that relativity, as Albert Einstein has pointed out, is not absolute, yet has not stopped any of us from basing many daily decisions on.
None of the theories mentioned before are perfect or even cover the complete scope of our evolving understanding of the complexity of nature. And some of the foregone theories we invented are challenged ferociously as newly uncovered proof-points beg for their timely review as some of Einstein’s discoveries are.
Imperfection is not foolishness
Nevertheless, we use these theories, which best reflect our knowledge of today, to help us make confident predictions about the behavior of nature from which we can elevate ourselves. The reinvention of those relativity theories is vital to our renewal, preferably at the pace by which our understanding of nature evolves.
Economics is in desperate need of reinvention. Away from the stale formula-driven theories (yes, Classical Economics Must Die), with its many outdated absolute references (many of which I will nail deep into Classical’s coffin), that have been proven not to work, and fail miserably in their contribution to the evolution of nature, and ourselves.
Instead, modern economics need to be composed to form a high-level relativity theory that best mimics the relativity and fluency of nature’s evolution if we want to assume a permanent role in it. And to build a relativity theory of economics (with accompanied real-world implementation), we can hang our hat on; we must, therefore, start with our best understanding of the relativity of evolution.
I cannot wait to share what I discovered.