{"id":1732279,"date":"2022-10-31T05:57:51","date_gmt":"2022-10-31T09:57:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/platoaistream.net\/?post_type=station&p=1732279"},"modified":"2022-10-31T06:35:33","modified_gmt":"2022-10-31T10:35:33","slug":"testing-limits-what-science-can-and-cant-tell-us-about-the-universe","status":"publish","type":"station","link":"https:\/\/platoaistream.net\/plato-data\/testing-limits-what-science-can-and-cant-tell-us-about-the-universe\/","title":{"rendered":"Testing limits: what science can and can\u2019t tell us about the universe"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Hamish Johnston<\/strong> reviews Existential Physics: A Scientist\u2019s Guide to Life\u2019s Biggest Questions <\/em>by Sabine Hossenfelder<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>

Deep thought<\/strong> Science is unable to answer all of our deepest questions about the universe and about life. (Courtesy: iStock\/agsandrew)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

What can science say about big questions such as how did the universe come into being, or do we have free will? In Existential Physics: A Scientist\u2019s Guide to Life\u2019s Biggest Questions<\/em><\/a>, the theoretical physicist, author and Youtuber Sabine Hossenfelder<\/a> argues that sometimes science cannot really say much. This is not science\u2019s fault, argues Hossenfelder, but rather it\u2019s because we don\u2019t have enough experimental data to test our hypotheses on some of these weighty issues. What is more, she says that on some of these issues we may never have enough data, putting their resolution beyond science.<\/p>\n

Take the origin of the universe.\u00a0 Hossenfelder dissects theories that attempt to describe the Big Bang and what occurred very shortly thereafter. She argues that the problem isn\u2019t with these theories \u2013 which she says are mathematically sound \u2013 but rather that the theories are based on a dearth of observational data. Astronomers cannot look back far enough in time to glean clues about what happened in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang, and we can\u2019t currently do experiments that recreate conditions anywhere near those that existed during the birth of the universe.<\/p>\n

Hossenfelder dubs these theories as \u201cascientific\u201d (something that cannot be dealt with using science whatsoever) and goes so far as to say that humans may never have sufficient experimental evidence about the first moments of the universe to test these ideas. As a result, she describes the myriad theories that describe the early universe as \u201cmodern creation myths written in the language of mathematics\u201d.<\/p>\n

Those familiar with Hossenfelder\u2019s writings and videos<\/a> will know that she excels at pointing out what she sees as the shortcomings of ascientific thinking in physics. In her latest book she extends these ideas to look at what science can say about\u00a0a broader range of\u00a0big questions. For some questions \u2013 like do we have free will, and why do we get older and never younger? \u2013 Hossenfelder points out that science does indeed have good answers. On other questions \u2013 such as does human existence define the laws of physics? \u2013 she explains in an entertaining way why science can\u2019t really say much.<\/p>\n

So, what is the point of a book with its focus on what we don\u2019t know? I think Hossenfelder wants to make it clear to non-scientists that science is nowhere near to having an answer for every question, and it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that science may never have all the answers. Hossenfelder is careful, however, not to trash the scientific method and leave the reader thinking that science can\u2019t really say much about anything. But she says that scientists should only develop theories that can be tested by observing nature \u2013 theories that can be falsified. She also has no problem with theories that can\u2019t be falsified but argues that they are not scientific. Indeed, she believes that such theories can serve a purpose, in the same way that religious beliefs are important.<\/p>\n

In these febrile times, some scientists might shudder at this message and how it could affect public trust in areas such as vaccination, where the science is sound. That, of course, is not Hossenfelder\u2019s intention \u2013 she rightly believes that a better understanding of the limitations of science will benefit society. This comes across loud and clear in her book, which I found fun to read and really made me think about the scientific method and the big questions in life.<\/p>\n