248
R. Barrett and P. P. Delsanto
12.6 Towards a New Copernican Revolution
Before we open discussion on specific issues in modern physics that merit
further examination, it is timely to revisit some of the questions raised in Part
1 that influence the methodology employed by physicists in their pursuits.
In particular, in Chaps. 1 and 2 we discussed the nature of reality, what we
mean by understanding, and the role played by logic in mathematics, and as
a consequence, physics.
Central to the early years of Homo sapiens on this planet was an underlying assumption of human intellectual superiority. So prevalent was this
attitude that a name was coined to describe it: anthropocentrism. Initially,
innate human intelligence was used to improve the chances of survival and
comfort of family and friends. However, after having reached, in the course
of tens of millennia, a certain level of prosperity and security, humans began
to gloat on their superiority, to the point of not accepting that they were just
another animal species. Since no other anatomical differences could be found
to explain their perceived nobler role, they thought that the human brain
must possess some discriminating characteristic, which they called reason.
Whether God given, or in some other manner inserted into the human brain,
and being common to all, irrespective of their life experiences, reason had to
be “a priori”, or so they thought, compared with the “a posteriori” of external
phenomenology.
Perhaps the latter point deserves some further clarification. If we live in a
particular part of the earth, and nobody is around to tell us about events from
outside our range of experience, we must derive our knowledge solely from
(or after —that is the meaning of a posteriori) our experiences of our external
world. However, in the case of arithmetic, our logic and intuition lead us to
the same results as those obtained by other people, irrespective of where they
live, which language they speak, or what has been their life experience. Hence
reason, which enables us to perform these arithmetical operations (and many
other logical deductions) must come from within us, before our experience of
the surrounding world (i.e. a priori).
The perceived privileged role of humanity also led to another important
consequence. Since Homo sapiens (whether created by God or not) were of
such extraordinary significance, the earth on which they lived had to be the
centre of the world, a fact confirmed by their observation of the sun, which
was seen as rotating around the earth, and of all the stars, which were apparently nestled in a sphere with the earth at its centre. In short, humanity
appeared to be the raison d’être for the whole universe.
R. Barrett and P. P. Delsanto
12.6 Towards a New Copernican Revolution
Before we open discussion on specific issues in modern physics that merit
further examination, it is timely to revisit some of the questions raised in Part
1 that influence the methodology employed by physicists in their pursuits.
In particular, in Chaps. 1 and 2 we discussed the nature of reality, what we
mean by understanding, and the role played by logic in mathematics, and as
a consequence, physics.
Central to the early years of Homo sapiens on this planet was an underlying assumption of human intellectual superiority. So prevalent was this
attitude that a name was coined to describe it: anthropocentrism. Initially,
innate human intelligence was used to improve the chances of survival and
comfort of family and friends. However, after having reached, in the course
of tens of millennia, a certain level of prosperity and security, humans began
to gloat on their superiority, to the point of not accepting that they were just
another animal species. Since no other anatomical differences could be found
to explain their perceived nobler role, they thought that the human brain
must possess some discriminating characteristic, which they called reason.
Whether God given, or in some other manner inserted into the human brain,
and being common to all, irrespective of their life experiences, reason had to
be “a priori”, or so they thought, compared with the “a posteriori” of external
phenomenology.
Perhaps the latter point deserves some further clarification. If we live in a
particular part of the earth, and nobody is around to tell us about events from
outside our range of experience, we must derive our knowledge solely from
(or after —that is the meaning of a posteriori) our experiences of our external
world. However, in the case of arithmetic, our logic and intuition lead us to
the same results as those obtained by other people, irrespective of where they
live, which language they speak, or what has been their life experience. Hence
reason, which enables us to perform these arithmetical operations (and many
other logical deductions) must come from within us, before our experience of
the surrounding world (i.e. a priori).
The perceived privileged role of humanity also led to another important
consequence. Since Homo sapiens (whether created by God or not) were of
such extraordinary significance, the earth on which they lived had to be the
centre of the world, a fact confirmed by their observation of the sun, which
was seen as rotating around the earth, and of all the stars, which were apparently nestled in a sphere with the earth at its centre. In short, humanity
appeared to be the raison d’être for the whole universe.