As readers know, I enjoy philosophy. I minored in it in college and write essays for books that link popular culture to philosophy topics, such as the recent Green Lantern and Philosophy (which I have discussed before).
Recently, I learned that The New York Times was bringing back their "The Stone" column, which has philosophers writing about the topics that interest them. I posted the following quote from the article, which illustrates why I like philosophy so much, onto Facebook:
"...philosophy is more than a profession. Philosophy is that living activity of critical reflection where we are invited to analyze the world in which we find ourselves, and to question what passes for common sense or opinion in the particular society in which we live."
To which an astute colleague of mine commented:
"I thought that description applied to science."
And, indeed, that's a very good description of science! In fact, science was initially called "natural philosophy," and this concept of questioning common sense assumptions is at the heart of it. Science, of course, is coupled with experimentation, but the fundamental act of questioning our assumptions goes beyond science into the philosophical realm. This is part of the reason why some of the earliest "scientists" date all the way back to the ancient Greeks.
I'm in the process of reading Brian Greene's (shown to the right) fascinating The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Universe, and I stumbled upon another great description, which gets into the contrast from another tactic. Greene describes a college introductory philosophy course he took as a freshman. (The underlining I've added emphasizes the key sentence that ties back into The Stone quote, I think.):
"Just about every class shook my grasp of the world, sometimes vigorously. This was an unexpected experience--I'd thought that upending reality would be the purview solely of my physics courses. Yet, there was an essential difference between the two. The physics lectures challenged comfortable views by exposing strange phenomena that arise in wholly unfamiliar realms where things move fast, are extremely heavy, or are fantastically tiny. The philosophy lectures shook comfortable views by challenging the foundations of everyday experience. How do we know there's a real world out there? Should we trust our perceptions? What thread binds our molecules and atoms to preserve our personal identity through time?"
Greene goes on to use these philosophical insights to support a particular from of parallel universe, which he calls a Simulated Multiverse. He's not so much making the case for their existence as just explaining what the argument is, but it's still quite fascinating, and certainly strives to challenge the foundations of our everyday experience.
What idea from physics most challenges your idea of how our universe works?
Comments
Inspiring! keep up the good work!
Andrew, isn’t reality merely the product of perception? IF each of us perceives and our perceptions are largely unique to us, it appears each has his own reality. Right?
I do not understand how reality can possibly be hidden, unless considered so until perceived by someone, barring the absence of facts or information that affects the ultimate perception[s] upon which reality is based.
Gregg Braden and Bruce Lipton are favorites of mine for determining what amounts to reality. Both have been scientific researchers for decades. Are you familiar with them?
DS, Rome, GA
There are several ideas that I don’t find very appealing. This includes: the cosmic singularity at the big bang and the early inflation and possibly “eternal inflation,” that is said to have followed microseconds in its wake, ideas about the multiverse or megaverse (also possibly connected to inflation) & the holographic principle. Each of these ideas are part of what I call “speculative science” as there isn’t any direct evidence/detections for them. However I realize that “speculative science” is an important part of the scientific process and some of these & other such ideas may one day become part of “solid” or detections supported science.
Dowload my free essay “The 3 ‘S’s’ of Science & the Physics of Humpty Dumpty” via any downloads button on http”//antspub.com
You ask : “What idea from physics most challenges your idea of how our universe works? ”
As I understand, we are receiving light comming to us from galaxies which are billion of light years away from us.
The concept of “expanding universe” is perplexing to me for the following reasons: (i) even those gallaxies at such tremendous time distance from us are very much similar to our own Milki Way galaxy. ( ii) If universe, consisting of all these galaxies is ‘expanding’, how is it possible that we have photos of “colliding gallaxies”, which obviously must be moving in DIFFERENT directions from each other ??
(iii) Even if the TOTAL universe is somehow expanding, at least within any single gallaxy, there is a gravitational centar which keep billions of stars spiralling aroung it, and threfore keepeng them within it’s boundaries.
For that reason, I am much more at ease with the idea of “pulsating” universe within which matter goes through tremendously long cycles of dissipation of energy, and collection of the same into the new “cores of existence” -’
i.e. new stars and gallaxies.
I would be very happy if someone could enlighten me on these perplexing question. Dan Kustudich, 902 697 2590
The “simple” notion that a particle is both a wave and a particle never fails to leave me, or my metaphysics students, a bit bewildered. It’s not that a particle might be a wave sometimes and then a particle at other times, but that a particle is both at the same time. This not only violates Aristotle’s “principle of non-contradiction” but violates what most folks take to be the nature of things in general. If this basic “quantum” fact is correct, then everything is called into question. The nature of reality is deeply affected and philosophy must figure out new ways to account for how things actually are.