Physics Ahead: Refine, or Find?

The far-reaching claim of the "Darwin's Cage" hypothesis is that we are blind to an unbound body of physics that is real and lurking. The human brain, so the Darwin-Cage hypothesis says, has been formed in the process of the Darwinian evolution, namely, in response to elements of reality that had a survival impact on the "evolvers". Since there is no other mechanism for brain wiring, one concludes that the human brain has no means to consider (and the human body has no means to sense) the part of reality that has no survival impact. Our Darwinian brain is developed enough, though, to suspect that much of reality we simply don' t see.

Is this suspicion grounded? If so physics stands before a fork in the road: to refine (what we know now), or find (what hides behind the Darwin's barrier), and only later analyze what we found.

Since we are so advanced in interpreting the physics we see today with compelling mathematics, we are very much inclined to brush off this Darwinian Cage hypothesis and keep refining the model of reality that we have for the very small and for the very big. Naturally we are busy refining the mathematical interpretation of reality hopefully with one simple encompassing formula known as the Theory of Everything.

However, if the Darwin Cage Hypotheis (DCH) is well established then one should consider an alternative strategy for the pursuit of phyics: rather than refine the interpretation and the theory building of the observations at hand, we should pivot to innovation to meet our challenge of Darwinian blindness -- effort to see the reality we so far are unaware of.

Chess analogy: Suppose we see only a 4x4 corner of the chess board. By observing moves on that corner one will conclude many rules of the game, how pawms, knights, bishops, tower, queens nad king move. However much of the game will still remain random. New pieces pop up on the visible 4x4 board, other pieces jump off, etc. The game observer might focus on writing the best set of rules for how a game is being played, and incorporate the randomness as part of the design features of the game.

However, if at some point the chess game observer suspects that the board is larger than what is visible, then instead of better formalizing the observed behavior, one should strive to unveil the missing part of the board -- only after which, will one focus on analyzing the sum total of games moves, and by then having a chance to figure out how the game is being played.

This reflects the fork in the road for physics today. To the extent that the Darwin's Cage hypothesis carries weight, it is the extent to which the prime effort of physics should go not to

refine what we already know, but to find what we yet know not.