From a Western point of view, it all started in ancient Greece around 600 BCE. This is the Axial period, a somewhat contradictory term coined by the German philosopher Karl Jaspers to identify the remarkable intellectual and spiritual awakening that arose in places around the world approximately within the century. In addition to the Greek explosion of thought, this was the Siddhartha Gautama (also known as the Buddha) period in India, of Confucius, and the Lao Tzu in China, the Zoroaster (or Zarathustra) in ancient Persia, religious leaders and A thinker that will justify the meaning Faith and morality in Greece, Thales of Miletus and Pythagoras of Samos were pioneers of pre-Socratic (genre) philosophy, moving the focus of inquiry and explanation from sacred things to nature.
To be sure, God never abandoned the early Greek thinking, but with the beginning of philosophy, trying to understand the workings of nature through logical reasoning as opposed to supernatural reasoning becomes self. A choice that has never been done before. The history of science from its earliest times to the present can be said to be a more successful divide between belief in supernatural elements and strictly materialistic reality and cosmology. Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, Ages of Reason. The light here is clearly something that transcends human logic over any supernatural or scientific method to get the “truth” of things.
For one person, Einstein was a believer, preaching the basic rationality of nature. There is no weird inexplicable thing like the gods playing dice – his tongue-in-cheek criticism of the belief that the unpredictable quantum world is the true basis of nature and not just flaw. Of our current understanding
Being able to understand nature’s workings through logic alone is not something that science can answer. This is where the complications begin. Can the human mind, by diligent application of scientific methods and the use of more powerful tools, reach a full understanding of the natural world? “End of science” is it true? This is a sensitive issue. If the divide that began in pre-Sogratik, Greece was completed, the overall nature would amenable to a logical description, a compilation of all the behaviors that scientific studies identify, classify and explain by the permanent laws of nature. All that’s left for scientists and engineers to do is the practical application of this knowledge, invention and technology that will meet our needs in different ways.
This kind of vision – or really hope – goes back to at least Plato, who, on the other hand, owes most of this expectation to Pythagoras and the philosopher Parmenides on Being the dispute between the unity of the being. Immortal or immutable (Being) and something that is changeable and fluid (Becoming), at least old. Plato proposes that truth lies in a world of rational and irreversible perfectionism that precedes the deceptive and deceptive reality of the senses. For example, an abstract pattern. chair Collect all object chairs that can be of various shapes in our sensory reality while serving functional (seated objects) and basic design. (With a seating surface and some legs on the bottom) As Plato says, form is the key to the essence of everything.
Plato uses the cave allegory to explain that what humans see and touch are not true truth.
Credit: Gothika via Wikimedia Commons CC 4.0.
When scientists and mathematicians use the term Platonic worldview, that’s what they basically mean: the unbound ability of reason to unravel the secrets of creation one by one. For one person, Einstein was a believer, preaching the basic rationality of nature. There is no weird inexplicable thing like the gods playing dice – his tongue-in-cheek criticism of the belief that the unpredictable quantum world is the true basis of nature and not just flaw. Of our current understanding Despite the great belief in such a fundamental sequence But Einstein was aware of the imperfection of human knowledge: “What I see from nature is a magnificent structure that we can only comprehend in the imperfect, and that must be complemented by those who are incomplete.” There is a feeling of humility ”(quoted by Dukas and Hoffmann in Albert Einstein, The Human Side: Glimpses from His Archives (1979), 39.). Persist with us today: On the one hand, the calm ideology that the fundamental things of reality are reasonable and understandable in the human mind, and on the other hand, the acceptance that our rational use limits our tools. There are limitations and to achieve a final or complete understanding. Of the material world is nothing but impossible semi-religious dreams.
This kind of tension is evident today when we see a group of scientists arguing enthusiastically. for or resist The existence of copyright, a concept that states that our universe is one of many other universes or for or resist The final combination of laws of physics
Naturally, of course, is the final arbiter of any scientific dispute, the information decides one way or another. That is the beauty and power at the core of science. The challenge, however, is knowing when to let go of the idea. How long should we wait until alluring thoughts are perceived as unrealistic? This is where the discussion becomes interesting. Information that supports the concept More “out of the way”, such as the copyright or the special symmetry required for the combination model, have declined to appear for decades, despite extensive searches with different tools and techniques. On the other hand, we will find that we only look. So, should we continue to defend these ideas? Who made the decisions? Is it a community decision, or should each person use their own way of thinking?
In 2019 I participated in an interesting Live discussion at the World Science Festival With physicists Michael Dine and Andrew Strominger and host physicist Brian Greene, the theme is string theory, our best choice for the final theory of how particles of matter react. When I completed my PhD in 1986, string theory was that Way. The only way. But by 2019, things have changed and quite a lot due to lack of support. To my surprise, both Mike and Andy were quite open to the fact that their past confidence was no longer. String theory has taught physicists a lot of things, and that might be a practical use. The calm tendency is in danger.
The dispute still lives on, although each failed experiment to provide supporting evidence for the dream string theory is hard to prove. It’s going to happen, as famous physicist Max Planck once said. “Ideas don’t die, physicists do”? (I paraphrase) I hope not. Rather, it is a conversation that should be held in a public place, as is the case with the World Science Festival. Dreams die hard But they may die a little easier when we accept the fact that our understanding of reality is limited and not always in line with our expectations of what should or should not be true.