The Sleepwalkers (260 page)

Modern
physics
is
not
really
concerned
with
"things"
but
with
the
mathematical
relations
between
certain
abstractions
which
are
the
residue
of
the
vanished
things.
In
the
Aristotelian
universe,
quantity
was
merely
one
attribute
of
things,
and
one
of
the
least
important.
Galileo's
"the
book
of
nature
is
written
in
the
language
of
mathematics"
was
regarded
by
his
contemporaries
as
a
paradox;
today
it
has
become
unquestioned
dogma.
For
a
long
time
the
reduction
of
quality
to
quantity
–
of
colour,
sound,
radiation
to
vibrational
frequencies
–
was
so
eminently
successful
that
it
seemed
to
answer
all
questions.
But
when
physics
approached
the
ultimate
constituents
of
matter,
quality
took
its
revenge:
the
method
of
reduction
to
quantity
still
worked,
but
we
no
longer
know
just
what
it
is
that
is
being
thus
reduced.
All
we
do
in
fact
know
is
that
we
read
our
instruments
–
the
number
of
clicks
in
the
Geiger
counter,
or
the
position
of
a
pointer
on
a
dial
–
and
interpret
the
signs
according
to
the
rules
of
the
game:

"And
so
in
its
actual
procedure
physics
studies
not
these
inscrutable
qualities
[of
the
material
world],
but
pointer
readings
which
we
can
observe.
The
readings,
it
is
true,
reflect
the
fluctuations
of
the
world-qualities;
but
our
exact
knowledge
is
of
the
readings,
not
of
the
qualities.
The
former
have
as
much
resemblance
to
the
latter
as
a
telephone
number
has
to
a
subscriber."
²⁴

Bertrand
Russell expressed this state of affairs even more succinctly:

"Physics
is
mathematical
not
because
we
know
so
much
about
the
physical
world,
but
because
we
know
so
little:
it
is
only
its
mathematical
properties
that
we
can
discover."
²⁵

7.
The
Conservatism
of
Modern
Science

There
are two ways of interpreting this situation.

Either
the
structure
of
the
universe
is
indeed
of
such
a
nature
that
it
cannot
be
comprehended
in
terms
of
human
space
and
time,
human
reason
and
human
imagination.
In
this
case
Exact
Science
has
ceased
to
be
the
Philosophy
of
Nature,
and
no
longer
has
much
inspiration
to
offer
to
the
questing
human
mind.
In
this
case
it
would
be
legitimate
for
the
scientist
to
withdraw
into
his
closed
system,
to
manipulate
his
purely
formal
symbols,
and
to
evade
questions
concerning
the
"real
meaning"
of
these
symbols
as
"meaningless",
as
it
has
become
the
fashion.
But
if
this
be
the
case,
he
must
accept
his
role
as
a
mere
technician
whose
task
is
to
produce,
on
the
one
hand,
better
bombs
and
plastic
fibres,
and
on
the
other,
more
elegant
systems
of
epicycles
to
save
the
phenomena.

The
second
possibility
is
to
regard
the
present
crisis
in
physics
as
a
temporary
phenomenon,
the
result
of
a
one-sided,
overspecialized
development
like
the
giraffe's
neck
–
one
of
those
culs-de-sac
of
mental
evolution
which
we
have
so
often
observed
in
the
past.
But
if
that
is
the
case,
where,
on
the
three-centuries'
journey
from
"natural
philosophy"
to
"exact
science",
did
the
estrangement
from
reality
begin;
at
what
point
was
the
new
version
of
Plato's
curse
uttered:
"Thou
shalt
think
in
circles"?
If
we
knew
the
answer,
we
would,
of
course,
also
know
the
remedy;
and
once
the
answer
is
known,
it
will
again
appear
as
heartbreakingly
obvious
as
the
sun's
central
position
in
the
solar
system.
"We
are
indeed
a
blind
race,"
wrote
a
contemporary
scientist,
"and
the
next
generation,
blind
to
its
own
blindness,
will
be
amazed
at
ours."
²⁶

I
shall
quote
two
examples
which
seem
to
me
to
illustrate
this
blindness.
The
materialist
philosophy
in
which
the
average
modern
scientist
was
reared
has
retained
its
dogmatic
power
over
his
mind,
though
matter
itself
has
evaporated;
and
he
reacts
to
phenomena
which
do
not
fit
into
it
much
in
the
same
manner
as
his
scholastic
forebears
reacted
to
the
suggestion
that
new
stars
might
appear
in
the
immutable
eighth
sphere.
Thus
for
the
last
thirty
years,
an
impressive
body
of
evidence
has
been
assembled
under
strict
laboratory
conditions
which
suggests
that
the
mind
might
perceive
stimuli
emanating
from
persons
or
objects
without
the
intermediary
of
the
sensory
organs;
and
that
in
controlled
experiments,
these
phenomena
occur
with
a
statistical
frequency
which
invites
scientific
investigation.
Yet
academic
science
reacts
to
the
phenomena
of
"extra-sensory
perception"
much
as
the
Pigeon
League
reacted
to
the
Medicean
Stars;
and,
it
seems
to
me,
for
no
better
reason.
If
we
have
to
accept
that
an
electron
can
jump
from
one
orbit
into
the
other
without
traversing
the
space
between
them,
why
are
we
bound
to
reject
out
of
hand
the
possibility
that
a
signal
of
a
nature
no
more
puzzling
than
Schroedinger's
electron-waves
should
be
emitted
and
received
without
sensory
intervention?
If
modern
cosmology
has
a
single
comprehensive
lesson
it
is
that
the
basic
events
in
the
physical
world
cannot
be
represented
in
three-dimensional
space
and
time.
Yet
the
modern
version
of
scholasticism
denies
additional
dimensions
to
the
mind,
or
brain,
which
it
readily
accords
to
the
particles
of
a
piece
of
lead.
I
am
not
playing
on
the
word
"dimension"
as
a
mechanical
analogy
–
after
the
manner
of
the
"fourth
dimension"
of
occult
quacks.
I
am
merely
saying
that
since
the
space-time
framework,
the
concepts
of
matter
and
causality
as
understood
both
by
classical
physics
and
by
commonsense
experience,
have
been
abandoned
by
modern
physics,
there
seems
to
be
no
justification
in
refusing
to
investigate
empirical
phenomena
because
they
do
not
fit
into
that
already
abandoned
philosophy.