PART I
QUESTIONS
HISTORICAL NOTES
Faced with the awesome wonder and the hopeless complexity of nature, each of
us must choose to be either a mystic or a logician - there is really nothing
in between. There are of course those, most of us in fact, who have never seriously
confronted the question, and there are those who, while publicly swearing allegiance
to logic, privately reveal themselves to be crypto-mystics. If challenged some
of us respond from deep in our hearts claiming that the world is intractable,
ultimately defying all attempts at logical analysis, and will therefore remain
forever a mystery. Others, in complete contrast, are convinced that nature inevitably
must obey principles of simple logic and, although exquisitely subtle and mind-numbingly
complex in its infinite variations and elaborations, it is ultimately tractable
and comprehensible in the sense that it can be modelled by the rigorous application
of mathematical and scientific analysis. Where can we seek guidance, perhaps
even answers? What, actually, are the questions? Is there anything we have learned
after 3000 years or more of organised enquiry on which we can base at least
some tentative opinions?
Looking back we see that there is a direct correlation between man’s perception
of his relationship to nature and the extent of his knowledge of it. Primitive
societies tend to view themselves as part of an amorphous, mysterious cosmos
which man can only hope to appease in order to survive and prosper. Developed
but still pre-technological civilisations, with a significant literary and philosophical
tradition, seem to regard nature as something abstract and virtually a product
of human imagination. It was only when modern science and technology evolved
that we were generally able to view nature as an independently analysable process
which man can set out to understand, manipulate and occasionally re-fashion
to his needs.
These three stages of knowledge correspond to the three main bodies of reference
works which, still today, we consult. Needless to say, there is a good deal
of overlapping between them, but they nevertheless function as largely independent
sources. Today we would refer to them as religious mythology, classical philosophy
and modern science. So where shall we start our search? In order to determine
that, we have to decide precisely what we are searching for, and I shall now
define our goal to be a strictly objective understanding of man’s place
in nature. Religion gives us myths and fables. Classical philosophy, even of
the modern variety, gives us dry and ultimately sterile musings about our mental
and conceptualising processes; hopeless attempts to discover, by solitary reflection
and introspection, the absolute truth. The genuine vocation of these two disciplines
would realistically be to define a moral framework within which human relationships
can function harmoniously. However their absurd, self-serving and ultimately
self-defeating claims to omniscience, the revelation of an instant shortcut
to perfect knowledge presumably made in order to bolster their “authority”,
have only served to undermine whatever validity they might have had. Modern
science alone, rather than pretending to provide answers, suggests a logically
objective methodology, an investigative technique, a tool for probing concretely,
physically, whatever is “out there” in our universe. This is true
in spite of the fact that we must accept an element of interpretation in any
human concept of anything. So with all that in mind, let’s briefly review
our scientific achievements to date.
First I must make the point that, as opposed to the technology used to exploit
nature, understanding is not gained as a smooth, continuous process, but by
leaps of insight,
<
previous
page -- next page >