A limit to scientific knowledge?

I just paid a visit to The Random Fish and found a link to a BBC news article that's well worth a read.

What do you get if you divide science by God?

It's an interesting article about the 2009 winner of the Templeton Prize, Bernard d’Espagnat. The prize is awarded to honour:

"a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works."

From the article at Templeton:

"...d’Espagnat has written and lectured extensively on the philosophical significance of the universal truths of quantum mechanics. He notes, however, that quantum physics merely predicts observational results. As far as describing reality, it suggests that not only our plain, everyday concepts of objects but also our scientific concepts refer only to phenomena – that is, to mere appearances common to all.

Still, d’Espagnat warns, experiments often falsify theories and so there must exist, beyond mere appearances, something that resists us and lies beyond the phenomena, a “veiled reality” that science does not describe but only glimpses uncertainly. In turn, contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out, d’Espagnat insists, by cogent scientific arguments. Although he concedes the theological implications of the term “veiled reality,” he guards against using it as justification for specific religious doctrines which can be falsified by reason and fact."

My feelings are more in line with Steven Weinberg and Martin Rees in the BBC report above. Physics can seem 'chillingly impersonal' (so can biology, just watch a wildlife documentary). Does it matter if we can't conceptualise where quantum theory is leading? I think not. The theory works exquisitely. Scientific hypothesis and experiment can still continue even if no one currently understands the contortions and ramifications of, say, a super-dimensional space (though they try). So long as there is a chain of logic to be followed then holding a mental picture, as of a 3d object, is not important. An underlying 'veiled reality', as d’Espagnat postulates, could be shattered tomorrow by one person's insight. Or the universe might get more interesting by becoming even less intuitive. Who knows? It's still today. Science offers hope; 'veiled reality', like religion, is a closing door to inquiry.

---------------------------

Bonus thought for a Sunday:

"The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand."

Frank Herbert (1920 – 1986)

and a previous TFAS:

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm.... that's funny...'.

Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)