>>( and remember, when I liken the ideas that push beyond the mundane to kicking open the Doors of Perception I don't do so to denigrate them. )
>
>
>In the future, models of quantum and relativistic phenomena will be created by models of neural networks.
>
>I don't think there is much more I can say.

Ok. But do you consider this idea original or unique? And ... so what?

Most readers of William Gibson or Neal Stephenson would probably nod their heads. Gibson and Stephanson themselves would probably be interested in what you are saying.

But as to your statement seeing the future of abstract models of 'reality' ( or some kind of unified field theory ) - perhaps even intellectual fashion t - I'm not sure you are succeeding in make your point - other than that you are experiencing agape in apprehending some of the implications of this. Fortunatley you are young enough that you will get to see a lot of it play out, so may be the satisfaction of finding out you are right.

That is a very good thing, but don't be frustrated if your subjective experience doesn't translate. That's the nature of subjective experience. I brought up the 'psychedelic' experience for a reason - not to say that would be the only way one could think as you are thinking, but the say that the attempt to articulate the ineffable when one has made a leap of understanding can be very frustrating. It is the frustration of feeling misunderstood that can be very alienating.