“Nature and the Greeks” by Erwin Schrödinger

Scientists work within a philosophical framework, though it is perhaps not as pronounced as that of philosophers. A scientific theory is an interpretation of empirical data, and it is often the case that numerous theories can describe the same set of data, which one the scientist chooses depends on his/her philosophy. Empirical evidence drives the advance of science by eliminating bad theories, and forcing the scientists to admit their own errors and sometimes take on a completely different perspective (paradigm shift).

Schrödinger explored ancient Greek philosophy because he believed that there might be something wrong with the philosophical foundation that classic physics was built upon. Since quantum theory and the theory of relativity has shaken the foundations of science, it is incentive to revisit the foundations, i.e, the philosophies of the ancient Greeks, in the hope of discovering neglected wisdom and also correcting inveterate errors (preconceived ideas and unwarranted assumptions) which may have been perpetuated.

He divided the great thinkers of antiquity roughly into two groups, Pythagoreans and Ionians (who are connected to the Atomists, the forerunners of modern philosophy). The division is based on their emphasis on reason vs. senses when constructing their worldview.

I’m intrigued by the Pythagorean cosmology. It was based on “unfounded, preconceived ideals of perfection, beauty and simplicity”, and yet it was perhaps closer to the truth than the geo-centric view. It makes me wonder how and why erroneous theories get perpetuated through history whereas the correct ones are obliterated.

Schrödinger lamented that, because man himself (the observer), has been removed from his picture of the world (the observed), “the scientific worldview consists of itself no ethical values, no aesthetical values, not a word about our own ultimate scope or destination.”

Quote:

The scientific world-picture vouchsafe a very complete understanding of all that happens—it makes it just a little too understandable. It allows you to imagine the total display as that of a mechanical clock-work, which for all that science knows could go on just the same as it does, without there being consciousness, will, endeavour, pain and delight and responsibility connected with it—though they actually are. And the reason for this disconcerting situation is just this, that, for the purpose of constructing the picture of the external world, we have used the greatly simplifying device of cutting our own personality out, removing it; hence it it gone, it has evaporated, it is ostensibly not needed.

In particular, and most importantly, this is the reason why the scientific world-view contains of itself no ethical values, no aesthetical values, not a word about our own ultimate scope or destination, and no God, if you please. Whence came I, whither go I?

Science cannot tell us a word about why music delights us, of why and how an old song can move us to tears.

Science, we believe, can, in principle, describe in full detail all that happens in the latter case in our sensorium and ‘motorium’ from the moment the waves of compression and dilation reach our ear to the moment when certain glands secrete a salty fluid that emerges from our eyes. But of the feelings of delight and sorrow that accompany the process science is completely ignorant—and therefore reticent.

Science is reticent too when it is a question of the great Unity—the One of Parmenides—of which we all somehow form part, to which we belong. The most popular name for it in our time is God—with a capital ‘G’. Science is, very usually, branded as being atheistic. After what we said, this is not astonishing. If its world-picture does not even contain blue, yellow, bitter, sweet—beauty, delight and sorrow—, if personality is cut out of it by agreement, how should it contain the most sublime idea that presents itself to human mind?

References:

Schrödinger, Erwin. Nature and the Greeks. Cambridge: University Press, 1954.