Neuroeconomics just evaluates the option valuation rather than
   making the assumption that humans are rational. I have found
   that paradox often disolves at higher levels of complexity. For
   example, notice Schrodinger's Cat. It's a paradox with the human
   conception of boolean valued truth. When we view Schrodinger's
   Cat with real-valued truth [0, 1], then we can see that the
   truth is '.5'. With greater complexity and understanding, the
   paradox was no longer a paradox.

   Interesting that you brought up P vs NP. That's one that I want
   to work on more. It has been some time since I looked at that
   problem though. As for the encryption, we already have that kind
   of bullying going on today. It makes for an interesting thoughts
   on how we have to protect those who are intelligent from thugs
   taking them hostage and extorting them. There is intent and
   purpose to law. Unfortunately, many people want everybody else
   to play by their rules rather than have system rules we all work
   with.

   It's interesting how you identify the common trends with the
   *real vs theory* and such. It shows the human pattern of
   splitting that is so common. Also, the *brain-in-a-vat* (aka
   solipsism) pattern of behavior can be done away with as well.
   Now that you mention it, that might be a fun project, a
   systematic model of the connection between the natural (physical
   and biological) and human axiomatic systems.

   I like what you said *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.* That is something we can work on
   together.