Here is an article I wrote in the summer of 1989. Those were the days of fascination with disciplines like theretical physics and mathematics. My friends and I bunked classes to discuss quantum mechanics, relativity theory and other exciting developments that had revolutionized our understanding of the physical world. Yet, despite the power of these forms of knowledge to unravel the mysteries of the universe, I was distinctly uncomfortable as I felt that these disciplines did not admit certain types of questions. Some of that tension is reflected in this article.
In his Evolution of Scientific Thought, A.d’Abro says:
“Consider the phenomenon of gravitation. Does any one really imagine that Newton or Einstein has ever attempted to explain gravitation? To say that gravitation is a property of matter or is the property of space-time in the neighbourhood of matter is just as much of an explanation as to say that sweetness is a property of sugar; for in the last analysis, what is matter – what is space-time…? (Scientists) content themselves with describing the properties and the relationships that appear to connect them. Clearly, those who seek explanations will find no comfort in science. They must turn to metaphysics. And yet, as a matter of fact, these rather gloomy conclusions are gloomy because we are expecting too much…we shall find that the descriptions of science are creative and fertile, and not sterile, as descriptions usually are.”
“Consider the phenomenon of gravitation. Does any one really imagine that Newton or Einstein has ever attempted to explain gravitation? To say that gravitation is a property of matter or is the property of space-time in the neighbourhood of matter is just as much of an explanation as to say that sweetness is a property of sugar; for in the last analysis, what is matter – what is space-time…? (Scientists) content themselves with describing the properties and the relationships that appear to connect them. Clearly, those who seek explanations will find no comfort in science. They must turn to metaphysics. And yet, as a matter of fact, these rather gloomy conclusions are gloomy because we are expecting too much…we shall find that the descriptions of science are creative and fertile, and not sterile, as descriptions usually are.”
As far as my opinion goes, I would like to point out that I wholeheartedly disagree with A.d’Abro’s point of view. To be just content with explanations or an understanding of the relationships between various parameters without really wanting to find out why these relationships exist (or, more appropriately, in the words of Stephen Hawking, “What breathes fire into these equations…?”), does not represent a complete enquiry as such.
Till now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is than to ask the question why. On the other hand, the people whose business is to ask why, the philosophers have not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories. Scientists often ‘look down’ or dismiss philosophical speculations, though they may themselves be constantly suppressing such urges within themselves!
Perhaps, as A.d’Abro says, those who seek explanations will find no comfort in science, and that they should turn to metaphysics. But can we really afford to be satisfied with just this ‘what’ kind of information and knowledge? We should be grateful (to whom, I wonder?!) because we are in a position to ask – what is matter, what is space-time, why is the universe…? Perhaps nature has ‘built’ us that way, so that we can ask these questions.
Let me consider this problem from the ‘atomic’ viewpoint of science. ‘Life’ can be defined roughly as ‘atoms trying to understand more about atoms’. I am not in a position to explain what understand means. And if atoms can ‘ask’ why atoms should exist, for example, there should be a reason, the reason being that atoms have themselves felt the need for asking these questions, knowing fully well that they have ‘felt the need for asking these questions’, and also ‘knowing that they know fully well that they have felt the need for asking these questions…ad infinitum.
When the need for asking these questions has been felt, the answers should be there – there cannot be questions without answers, however seemingly stupid or otherwise the questions may be (actually, no question is stupid as such). This is necessary to maintain some sort of ‘equilibrium’ or ‘balance’ in this universe…there should not be any ‘agitation’ which will disturb the ‘universal calm…’ In that sense, being content or jubilant that it is enough to understand relationships between various parameters without asking why those relationships exist, does not represent the highest product of the human intellect. The process of enquiry may go on forever, but that should not deter one from asking these questions. That is my sincere opinion.
Till now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is than to ask the question why. On the other hand, the people whose business is to ask why, the philosophers have not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories. Scientists often ‘look down’ or dismiss philosophical speculations, though they may themselves be constantly suppressing such urges within themselves!
Perhaps, as A.d’Abro says, those who seek explanations will find no comfort in science, and that they should turn to metaphysics. But can we really afford to be satisfied with just this ‘what’ kind of information and knowledge? We should be grateful (to whom, I wonder?!) because we are in a position to ask – what is matter, what is space-time, why is the universe…? Perhaps nature has ‘built’ us that way, so that we can ask these questions.
Let me consider this problem from the ‘atomic’ viewpoint of science. ‘Life’ can be defined roughly as ‘atoms trying to understand more about atoms’. I am not in a position to explain what understand means. And if atoms can ‘ask’ why atoms should exist, for example, there should be a reason, the reason being that atoms have themselves felt the need for asking these questions, knowing fully well that they have ‘felt the need for asking these questions’, and also ‘knowing that they know fully well that they have felt the need for asking these questions…ad infinitum.
When the need for asking these questions has been felt, the answers should be there – there cannot be questions without answers, however seemingly stupid or otherwise the questions may be (actually, no question is stupid as such). This is necessary to maintain some sort of ‘equilibrium’ or ‘balance’ in this universe…there should not be any ‘agitation’ which will disturb the ‘universal calm…’ In that sense, being content or jubilant that it is enough to understand relationships between various parameters without asking why those relationships exist, does not represent the highest product of the human intellect. The process of enquiry may go on forever, but that should not deter one from asking these questions. That is my sincere opinion.
March’89
No comments:
Post a Comment