We are capable to carry out measurements of black holes, but Albert Einstein is not able to cure cold
Albert Eynshteyn
In general, scientific knowledge surprisingly fragmentary — and the deepest riddles often are somewhere nearby. Today we can convincingly interpret results the measurements showing collision of two black holes, being more than in billion light years from Earth. Meanwhile we a little that reached in cold treatment, despite huge advances of epidemiology. That we can be sure of existence of the mysterious and remote space phenomenon, at the same time getting into difficulties because of daily things, it is not so paradoxical as at first it seems. The astronomy is much simpler than biology and other sciences about the person. The black holes seeming to us exotic, one of the simplest objects of the nature. They can be described precisely the simple equations. As to us to determine by
complexity? The question of how the science is far capable to come, partially depends on the answer. Something consisting of only several atoms, cannot be too difficult. Large things too are not obliged to be difficult. Despite the huge size, a star — object quite simple. Its kernel is so hotter that difficult molecules collapse and no chemical compounds there are present so there is, in fact, an amorphous gas from nuclear kernels and electrons. And it is possible to consider the crystal of salt consisting of atoms of sodium and chlorine, packed together is very dense so that to create a repeating cubic lattice. If to take a big crystal and to chop it, its structure practically does not change until it will not sort to separate atoms. Even if it will be large, it is impossible to call a piece of salt difficult.
Atoms and the astronomical phenomena — very big and very small — can be quite simple. And here between them difficulties begin. The most difficult of everything — is living beings. The animal has internal structures at all scales, from proteins in hotel cages to extremities and the main bodies. It cannot exist chopped on pieces as the crystal of salt continues to exist when it will cut. It dies.
sometimes represent Scientific understanding in the form of the hierarchy ordered in the manner of floors of the building. Everything that is connected with more difficult systems, everything settles down above, and that it is simpler — below. The mathematics sits in a cellar, over it there is a physics of particles, then other physics, then chemistry, then biology, then botany and zoology, and at last, a behaviorism and social sciences (the economy, for certain, raises a claim for a penthouse).
Sorting of sciences is not challenged, but there is a question, whether really sciences of the first floor — in particular, physics of particles — deeper or comprehensive, than others. In any sense indeed. As the physicist Vaynberg Stephen in the book "Dreams of the Final Theory" (1992) [Dreams of a Final Theory] explains, all explaining answers specify down. If you how the stubborn child, repeat "why why why? ", you appear at the level of particles. From a point of zreniye of Vaynberg Stephen all scientists — reductionists . They are sure that everything which is as much as difficult, is the decision Schrödinger's equations — the main equation operating behavior of system according to the quantum theory.
But explanation of reductionists not always the best or the most useful. "More — means, in a different way" — as the physicist Filip Anderson told . All as much as difficult — rainforests, hurricanes, human communities — consists of atoms and submits to laws of quantum physics. But even if these equations could be solved for huge congestions of atoms, they would not give us that enlightenment which is looked for by scientists.
the Macroscopic systems containing a huge number of particles, show arising properties which are best of all for understanding in terms of the new, not reduced concepts suitable for this level of system. Valency, a gastrulation (differentiation of cages at development an embryo), an imprinting , natural selection are examples of such phenomena. Even so not a puzzle as a water current in pipes or the rivers, it is better to understand in viscosity and turbulence terms, than in the form of the relations of separate atoms. Specialists in mechanics of liquids do not pay attention that water consists of H 2 O; they can understand how waves collapse and when turn leads to stream knocking down only because represent liquid in the form of continuous substance.
New concepts are especially important for our understanding of especially difficult things — for example, migrations of birds or a human brain. The brain — is a set of cages; the picture — is a set of chemical pigments. But how there are structures and regularities when we move up on levels — that it is possible to call being shown complexity is important and interesting.
So a reductionism in any sense is right. But it is seldom faithful in useful sense. Only 1% of scientists study physics of particles or cosmology. Other 99% work at higher levels of hierarchy. They are constrained by complexity of their subject, instead of a lack of understanding of subnuclear physics.
Here so actually turns out that analogy between science and the building — bad. The weak base endangers building structure. To the contrary, the sciences of the highest levels working with difficult systems, do not suffer from unreliable bases. Each level of science possesses the, separate explanations. The phenomena of different levels of complexity need to be understood in terms of various, not reduced concepts.
Can expect big breaks on three fronts: very small, very large, and very difficult. And nevertheless, I will risk to assume that to our understanding there are limits. First who can reach these limits, can become attempts to understand very difficult systems — such as our brain. Probably, difficult congestions of atoms, whether it be a brain or electronic cars, are incapable to learn everything about themselves. And we can face other barrier if we try to follow on Vaynberg Stephen even lower: if they lead to that geometry of many measurements which is drawn to themselves by specialists in the theory of strings. Physicists can understand never space and time bases because their mathematics will be too difficult.
my statement for restrictions of human knowledge David Eliezer Doych , the outstanding physicist-theorist who has thought up the concept "challenged Quantum computer". In its provocative and fine book "Infinity Beginning" (2011) [The Beginning of Infinity], it is said that in principle we will calculate any process. It so. However, something to count opportunity it is not equal to opportunity it to understand. Fine fractal drawing, Mandelbrot's great number , is described by algorithm in some lines. Its form can be constructed even on the computer of modest power.
But any person, having before itself only one algorithm, will not be able to imagine this extremely difficult drawing as he can imagine a square or a circle. the World champion in chess Kasparov Gary writes
in the book "Deep thought" (2017) that "the person together with car" can make more, than separately. Probably, new discoveries will be made by means of strengthening symbiosis of two of these sushchnost. For example, in development of drugs and in materials research researches use of computer simulations gives more and more opportunities, than laboratory experiments. Whether will be able qualitatively to surpass as a result cars us — and to become reasonable — while a question disputable.
the Abstract thinking available to a biological brain, predetermined emergence of culture and science. But this activity going throughout no more than several tens millennia, probably, serves as the short predecessor of stronger posthuman reasons — appeared thanking not to Darvinian selection, and "reasonable development". It is possible to argue on, whether the future belongs to organic postpeople or electronic superclever cars. But we will is inappropriate antropotsentrichny, considering that the exhaustive understanding of physical reality is subject to the person, and that on a share of our far descendants there will be no secrets.