132
8 The Universe Observed and Unobserved
the living, seeing subject who actually produces the visual scene. Clark suggests
(perhaps with a grain of salt) that perception is like a controlled hallucination.
Moreover, since it is the brain that crafts the image, it has the task of producing
a veridical representation without any form of direct contact with the world.
Interestingly, the scientific method works in the same way. Hypotheses are
formulated, and subjected to testing by experiment. As the British philosopher
Sir Karl Popper made clear, the most useful result of an experiment is if it fails,
for then the issue is settled, and the hypothesis is rejected. If an experiment
succeeds, we’re encouraged to continue with cautious optimism, but with no
assurance that our hypothesis is true. Here again, you see that nature guides
science by means of its constraints. The only hard-core reality known by direct
experience are nature’s prohibitions. Out of them, science must create a picture
of reality. 6
A scientist’s contact with the external world is at the points where the world
opposes him or her with its restraints and impediments. Our imagination may
wish to fly free, but is restrained by the boundaries of what is physically possible.
It is by confronting those boundaries and dealing with them that we are able to
form an image or model of the world. Many notions of science have a negative
character: Force is what we must produce when objects resist our push. The
very notion of space emerges from the experience of wanting to move, and
facing the limited degrees of freedom open to us. Moreover, science reveals its
secrets in laws of nature, and laws are restrictions to unlimited freedom.
I’d like to share my favorite metaphor for the scientific quest to discover
the structure of the universe: Think of a hollow bust of Julius Caesar. Imagine
that our world is inside the bust and we would like to know Caesar’s features
as they would be seen from the outside. To explore our world, we fly out in
every direction until we meet the inside surface of the bust, which impedes our
going further, and we map the points where we’re made to turn back. From
our knowledge of the inner surface we attempt to infer the outside aspect of
the bust. That is how science tries to understand the world. We know the side
which is exposed to us, but the hidden side is merely inferred.
By means of this insight, we get a much clearer understanding of what
the mind-independent world is like. The mind-independent world—or background reality—does not need to have any positive characteristics or features.
Its character is determined by the actions it blocks and forbids in the material
world. Thus, the search for attributes or properties of the background world
is futile: The quest to find the features of the primal universe is a wasted effort
because background reality is featureless in its very essence. It acts powerfully
on the empirical world by legislating what cannot be done.
8 The Universe Observed and Unobserved
the living, seeing subject who actually produces the visual scene. Clark suggests
(perhaps with a grain of salt) that perception is like a controlled hallucination.
Moreover, since it is the brain that crafts the image, it has the task of producing
a veridical representation without any form of direct contact with the world.
Interestingly, the scientific method works in the same way. Hypotheses are
formulated, and subjected to testing by experiment. As the British philosopher
Sir Karl Popper made clear, the most useful result of an experiment is if it fails,
for then the issue is settled, and the hypothesis is rejected. If an experiment
succeeds, we’re encouraged to continue with cautious optimism, but with no
assurance that our hypothesis is true. Here again, you see that nature guides
science by means of its constraints. The only hard-core reality known by direct
experience are nature’s prohibitions. Out of them, science must create a picture
of reality. 6
A scientist’s contact with the external world is at the points where the world
opposes him or her with its restraints and impediments. Our imagination may
wish to fly free, but is restrained by the boundaries of what is physically possible.
It is by confronting those boundaries and dealing with them that we are able to
form an image or model of the world. Many notions of science have a negative
character: Force is what we must produce when objects resist our push. The
very notion of space emerges from the experience of wanting to move, and
facing the limited degrees of freedom open to us. Moreover, science reveals its
secrets in laws of nature, and laws are restrictions to unlimited freedom.
I’d like to share my favorite metaphor for the scientific quest to discover
the structure of the universe: Think of a hollow bust of Julius Caesar. Imagine
that our world is inside the bust and we would like to know Caesar’s features
as they would be seen from the outside. To explore our world, we fly out in
every direction until we meet the inside surface of the bust, which impedes our
going further, and we map the points where we’re made to turn back. From
our knowledge of the inner surface we attempt to infer the outside aspect of
the bust. That is how science tries to understand the world. We know the side
which is exposed to us, but the hidden side is merely inferred.
By means of this insight, we get a much clearer understanding of what
the mind-independent world is like. The mind-independent world—or background reality—does not need to have any positive characteristics or features.
Its character is determined by the actions it blocks and forbids in the material
world. Thus, the search for attributes or properties of the background world
is futile: The quest to find the features of the primal universe is a wasted effort
because background reality is featureless in its very essence. It acts powerfully
on the empirical world by legislating what cannot be done.