I keep going back to a series of articles New Scientist ran (March 2, 2013) with the theme “We’ve run out of explanations for the universe: What’s next?” In the lead article, Brian Greene, a theoretical physicist at Columbia University, New York, discusses the difficulties scientists have in “revealing the hidden expanses of reality”. The mathematical equations “with which we theorists tinker” are admitted to be far from the real world. Therefore, “In the absence of compelling experimental results, deciding what mathematics should be taken seriously is as much an art as it is science”.
But sometimes mathematics does foreshadow what has been or remains hidden. To take one instance, “The Higgs boson … an elementary particle [was] initially theorised in 1964, and tentatively confirmed to exist on 14 March 2013” (Wikipedia, August 21, 2013). We are willing to wait for and strive for conclusive evidence.
Another issue in this overview of the philosophy of science, one that Greene dwells on, is that time and again theorists have not taken “seriously enough” the mathematics, the insights into what might be. Any delving into the history of scientific activity will provide a lesson on how unwise it is to scoff at those using speculation or calculation to try to add a new chapter to our understanding of things (or universes) around us.
Unless that elusive certainty can be captured it is better to let the “100 flowers bloom” (in the good sense of that campaign). This is where the “art” of recognising reality is bound to scientific discovery. Also, the cultivating of that art of insight is bound to our understanding of other areas of life. For example, many people seem unwilling to practice the art of observing the traces of the Beautiful, the Good, the True, that are around them.
This does not mean abandoning our rational powers or, with respect, identifying how certain views do not correspond with the evidence at hand. But, to use Brian Greene’s words, “it is only through fearless engagement that we can learn our limits”. Further, “only through rational pursuit of theories, even those that whisk us into strange and unfamiliar domains – by taking the [insights] seriously - do we stand a chance of revealing the hidden expanses of reality”. In fact Greene has a book entitled The Hidden Reality (2011). Surely, we can agree that it is not just in the field of cosmology that that title rings true.
It’s good to see passion for the truth, but many people show a lack of imagination, a reluctance to open themselves to a love of what is mysterious, namely, in the context of this post, an essential element in the lives of vast numbers of people – the reality of the Holy and, for many among that number, a god who,incredibly, can be known and named and is experienced as welcoming a loving relationship with all people. Therein lies a profound mystery and challenge for the imagination that belittles us if we respond simply with scorn.
Therefore, we need to remain humble about what we know in the face of the often enormous gap between theory and experimental discoveries. The New Scientist articles dismiss the idea that we are close to a theory that explains everything – especially particle physics and cosmology: “One problem is that mathematics provides infinite ways in which numbers and abstract quantities can be processed – but no indication of what exists beyond it.”
The articles also add caution about expectations for the outcome of the scientific effort. Paul Davies of Arizona State University in Tempe reportedly believes that even a “theory of everything”… "wouldn’t help solve problems of the origin of life or the nature of consciousness”. For Lisa Randall, professor of physics at Harvard, the key issue is this:“Even if we knew the ultimate underlying theory, how are we going to explain the fact that we’re here?”
But sometimes mathematics does foreshadow what has been or remains hidden. To take one instance, “The Higgs boson … an elementary particle [was] initially theorised in 1964, and tentatively confirmed to exist on 14 March 2013” (Wikipedia, August 21, 2013). We are willing to wait for and strive for conclusive evidence.Another issue in this overview of the philosophy of science, one that Greene dwells on, is that time and again theorists have not taken “seriously enough” the mathematics, the insights into what might be. Any delving into the history of scientific activity will provide a lesson on how unwise it is to scoff at those using speculation or calculation to try to add a new chapter to our understanding of things (or universes) around us.
Unless that elusive certainty can be captured it is better to let the “100 flowers bloom” (in the good sense of that campaign). This is where the “art” of recognising reality is bound to scientific discovery. Also, the cultivating of that art of insight is bound to our understanding of other areas of life. For example, many people seem unwilling to practice the art of observing the traces of the Beautiful, the Good, the True, that are around them.
This does not mean abandoning our rational powers or, with respect, identifying how certain views do not correspond with the evidence at hand. But, to use Brian Greene’s words, “it is only through fearless engagement that we can learn our limits”. Further, “only through rational pursuit of theories, even those that whisk us into strange and unfamiliar domains – by taking the [insights] seriously - do we stand a chance of revealing the hidden expanses of reality”. In fact Greene has a book entitled The Hidden Reality (2011). Surely, we can agree that it is not just in the field of cosmology that that title rings true.
It’s good to see passion for the truth, but many people show a lack of imagination, a reluctance to open themselves to a love of what is mysterious, namely, in the context of this post, an essential element in the lives of vast numbers of people – the reality of the Holy and, for many among that number, a god who,incredibly, can be known and named and is experienced as welcoming a loving relationship with all people. Therein lies a profound mystery and challenge for the imagination that belittles us if we respond simply with scorn.
Therefore, we need to remain humble about what we know in the face of the often enormous gap between theory and experimental discoveries. The New Scientist articles dismiss the idea that we are close to a theory that explains everything – especially particle physics and cosmology: “One problem is that mathematics provides infinite ways in which numbers and abstract quantities can be processed – but no indication of what exists beyond it.”
The articles also add caution about expectations for the outcome of the scientific effort. Paul Davies of Arizona State University in Tempe reportedly believes that even a “theory of everything”… "wouldn’t help solve problems of the origin of life or the nature of consciousness”. For Lisa Randall, professor of physics at Harvard, the key issue is this:“Even if we knew the ultimate underlying theory, how are we going to explain the fact that we’re here?”
