Neuroeconomics - fascinating! It helps with some of the
   disagreements I've had regarding the Adam Smith model (which is
   marvelous and wonderful and has taken us *very far* - yet has
   inherent limitations) in its over-reliance on the concept of
   "humans as rational".
   *
   [which was fine for its time historically, but its nice to see
   cognitive science making headway here from an economics
   perspective]
   *
   Regarding mathematical foundations for Universes; I don't doubt
   it's *possible*; mathematics is practically *made* for
   investigating possibilities in a self-supporting way.
   *
   My concern is that, underlying it all, for a system to *be* so
   paradox-free there must be a paradox. (can the bootstrap
   bootstrap the bootstrap?)
   *
   I personally don't have a problem with paradoxes; I don't think
   they really exist, as they can be done away with by stepping
   outside of the system containing the paradox and viewing it from
   the perspective of another system that rests on a different
   basis. (for example, to solve an NP-hard problem, step outside
   of the computability of it and actually *do it*; take the
   necessity for Universality out it and apply it)
   *
   Or "how to crack an uncrackable encryption scheme?" - if the
   creator is alive, kidnap his family and threaten to kill them if
   he doesn't give up the code.
   *
   Horrible, awful to even consider such tactics, but those are the
   places where the armchair meets the Russian mob as it were.
   *
   I'm not taking way from the beauty of the system as they are -
   and the fantastic potential they have as illustrators of Truth;
   but the fact that it's real humans that are doing these things;
   that there's really no abstractions when it comes down to it;
   there seems to be a biological basis for concepts, with
   squirting neurochemicals and the like... - and that we humans
   are the ones creating these formulations - that the *way* we
   currently discuss things - in terms of "real vs abstract"
   "theory vs reality" - Platonic ideals - "brain in a vat" style;
   imposes limits upon our ability to consider everything.
   *
   I don't believe mathematics is a fiction; it is quite real; but
   I would be interested in seeing an update at some point; where
   axioms can successfully upon their biological foundations and
   THEN be built up; and not necessarily in "brain-in-a-vat" style
   but rather as a system of discourse - with a biological basis,
   used by beings that live within societies and subcultures with
   various methods of discourse on a planet, while also keeping in
   mind the historical context behind the basis of the ideas.
   *
   It's a tall order: biological, socio-cultural, historical and
   THEN the theories laid on top... but I think it would be a nice
   way for society to move forward.
   *
   I think it would be better for, a nice theory can be argued
   using the Socratic method quite easily; but a more (I don't like
   this word but I have to use it) ecological perspective on
   mathematics that *also* incorporates axioms and proofs as
   standing ON TOP OF our status as humans and respecting our
   differeing perspectives, would ultimately be a much more
   powerful mathematics than currently exists today.Of course. it's
   not really an order of operations as it were; biological,
   socio-cultural and historical might need to happen in a braided
   fashion; i see it as a stronger cord to rest discourse on; and a
   way to tie the humanities and sciences together. Right now, I
   think their separation is unnecessary and kind of sad really. I
   don't see any reason they need to fight, really Hm...
   historical, sociocultural then biological then theories. Start
   with the stories: Where did this come from? How does it
   currently relate in the context of today?

   Then move to sciences
   biological

   then move to the platonic ideals.

   There's a lot of bootstrapping within it all; biology is full of
   its own platonic ideals and imperfect; history and sociocultural
   rests on a lot of assumptions and perspectives within the
   storytelling; but I think what I'm trying to eliminate (if it is
   possible) the concept of something being so perfect as it merely
   falls out of the sky as self-evident. Even if it doesn't
   eliminate conflict (as a purely mathematical system is able to
   do within itself) - it does, at least, come from a more
   forthright approach - not that anybody's lying - they're not.
   Just hidden-variable checking as it were