Subatomic particles can be in two places at the same time. They can exist in two times and places simulatenously yet remain intimately connected, even if they are at different ends of the universe ("non-locality"). They can also pop in and out of existence at random, and can travel effortlessly from the future to the present - which suggests that matter is as much influenced by its future as by its past...
..it is alien, illogicl, bizarre and completely counter to Newtonian physics or classical mechanics.
I am a subjectivist economist - a position that is associated with the Austrian school.
Subjectivism is a cognitive frame of reference, and pervades our values, our expectations and our knowledge. Since economic science is the application of value-free analysis to a means/ends framework, and means/ends are expectations within the mind of the individual – subjectivism is a crucial tenet. Furthermore, because utility and costs can only be valued subjectively (and those valuations are likely to differ between individuals), the economic system will be complex. It will also be a system of learning, as the individual actors themselves generate institutions to benefit their endeavours.
Because of this I find the influence of Newtonian physisc in economics as disturbing. The macro economy is a series of variables (such as interest rates, inflation, GDP, investment, etc...) and macroeconomics is the manipulation of some variables to affect others. Imagine a great mechanical pump - house prices are rising, lets increase interest rates to slow them down. Simple.
Personally, I think such economists' are kidding themselves, and the public should be weary and skeptical when we hear economists and politicians refer to the economy as if it's a machine that can be sped up, or slowed down, at will. It's far more complicated than it's in the interests of those guys to admit, and invariably attention to one variable (say stock prices) will mean distraction from anothers (perhaps housing prices). The reason that economists suffer from this affliction is the rise of modern physics, and the desire to portray economic science as a natural science. In the c20th Physics was where all the money was, and so economist's went after funding by dressing up their subject in as much scientific terminology as possible.
This was a mistake, and modern economics is becoming increasingly interested by cognitive factors such as expectations, culture and religion. So now that the Newtonian system is no longer the definitive consensus in Physics, it certainly shouldn't be so in economics. Viva subjectivism!