What does the speed of light have to do with everyday life, or fixed background, for that matter? Let’s see.

For those who, in 2011, hoped to find a neutrino traveling faster than light, the 2012 confirmation of measurement errors—and the final confirmation that neutrinos indeed obey special relativity—was an anticlimax. However, some of us had already “known” that contemporary scientific methods would not, in principle, reveal any particle traveling faster than light. At the same time, we understood that a physical (material) realm must exist where particles do not conform to special relativity and can, in fact, travel faster than light.

This “knowledge” is not solely derived from a philosophical standpoint but is equally supported by conceptual gaps in physics, such as Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, quantum entanglement, black holes, and cosmic inflation in the early universe. It is a form of knowledge not yet supported by data—but rather a kind of meta-knowledge that drives data. This position is not anti-science but rather anti-scientism—an acknowledgment of both the merits and the limitations of science as it is understood today.

The Möbius Strip of Science and Philosophy

This discussion suggests that philosophy is as much a science as physics. They exist on a Möbius strip, appearing distinct when viewed from an isolated perspective, yet seamlessly transgressing into one another when examined holistically.

However, this issue is not merely of academic interest. Science, as scientism, is already a relic of history. It is doomed because it cannot explain itself from within its own framework—a problem that Gödel demonstrated irrefutably. This discussion is crucial for understanding our memetic environment, which remains defined by the false scientistic discourse that permeates modern intellectual life.

False scientific assumptions serve as axioms in our thinking, shaping discussions on democracy, freedom, inequality, and other sociopolitical constructs that define our daily lives. When we accept these scientistic axioms, we behave like someone who mistakes the transparency of glass for its nonexistence—only, in this case, the consequences are not immediately painful. Instead, they feel enlightening in the short term, while their long-term impact is far more insidious.

The Fallacy of the Fixed Background

One of the most significant lessons in modern physics comes from Lee Smolin (Smolin, 2007), who pointed out the fallacy of a fixed background in modern scientific theories, including Einstein’s.

To assume that anything in the universe is fundamentally fixed is, in principle, incorrect. This does not mean that the speed of light is not measurable or consistent within a given framework, but rather that any theory positing a fixed background—be it space, time, or a universal constant—is inherently flawed.

The fixed background fallacy extends beyond physics and permeates all aspects of human thought. Consider a well-known maxim from contemporary business management:

“If you are fast in the market, that is only enough to stay in the same position, since everyone is fast, and many are faster than you.”

At first glance, this statement appears insightful. However, it falls into the same fixed background fallacy as relativity theory. Here, “position” is assumed to be measured against a fixed background.

Yet, experience tells us that sometimes speed is irrelevant—one must simply change the playing field. Consider blockchain disruption. While traditional finance and startup platforms (e.g., Kickstarter) accelerated competition, blockchain enabled previous market “losers” to gain momentum without increasing their speed. In this sense, light was, in fact, faster than light for them.

Evolving Complexity and Changing Laws

A further repudiation of the fixed background premise comes from Robert E. Ulanowicz in A Third Window (Ulanowicz, 2009). One of his most profound insights is the realization that:

If complex systems exist, why wouldn’t complexity itself evolve?

If everything—the universe, life, intelligence—evolves, why would we assume that laws remain static? His argument, supported by observed anomalies in physics, is simple:

Physical laws are not fixed forever; they change over time.

This does not mean that particles suddenly violate relativity, but rather that light itself may have traveled at different speeds in the past—or will in the future—depending on the nature of evolving physical laws.

Memetics, Democracy, and the Evolution of Laws

Interestingly, Ulanowicz’s argument is more intuitive within memetics than within physics. Consider the memetic field of democracy.

We already accept that ancient Greek democracy functioned under different laws than modern Western democracy. In Athens, democracy was a privilege for a select few; today, it still excludes animals and AI.

Memetic evolution, which follows a Lamarckian rather than Darwinian path, moves faster than genetic evolution and exponentially faster than thermodynamic physical evolution. If laws defining democracy can evolve over time, why should physical laws be an exception? They change far more slowly—too slowly for us to perceive their drift—but they do change.

The Fallacy of Reductionism

This argument brings us to the fundamental ideological flaw at the heart of scientistic discourse: reductionism.

Reductionism despises complexity. It thrives in centralized systems—central banking, hierarchical governance, and rigidly structured scientific dogma. At the same time, it paradoxically embraces anarchy as an excuse for reinforcing centralization.

This explains why reductionism hates blockchain. Unlike anarchism, which suggests a lack of order, blockchain represents decentralized order. It acknowledges that reality cannot be reduced to a single governing principle.

This is also why blockchain is loathed by what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls fragilistas (Taleb, 2014)—those who seek hierarchical control over complex systems. They despise blockchain almost as much as they fear freemasonry.

It is a mistake to equate anarchism with decentralization. True decentralization respects order—but order emerges bottom-up, not top-down, as assumed by believers in top-down organization. Chaotic systems are not anarchic. They exhibit self-regulating, nonlinear complexity that resists intellectual reductionism.

Farmers, for instance, live nonlinearity—something that linear-thinking intellectuals fail to comprehend. Complexity is complex precisely because nothing represents a fixed background for it.

The Coin of Statism: Reductionism and Fixed Backgrounds

If statism were a coin, its two sides would be reductionism and the fallacy of the fixed background.

More is said about both fallacies, especially reductionism, in other posts. However, it should already be evident that these two ideological constructs pose a significant threat to homonism—the philosophical position that human agency, adaptability, and emergent complexity should remain at the core of our understanding of reality.

References

•Smolin, L. (2007). The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. Mariner Books.

•Taleb, N. N. (2014). Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder. Random House Publishing Group.

•Ulanowicz, R. E. (2009). A Third Window: Natural Life Beyond Newton and Darwin. Templeton Foundation Press.