Ciencia / Filosofía / Metafísica


  (Hemos estado de viaje)
Hace días citábamos una obra teatral en el momento en que Bohr, en conversación con Werner Heisenberg, afirma que “no existe un universo objetivo determinable con precisión”, e hicimos alusión al relativismo, empirismo y subjetivismo imperantes durante todo el siglo 20 – especialmente en el mundo anglosajón – . El empirismo venía de antes (Hume, etc.) y no negaba la existencia de un mundo objetivo, pero con Kant apareció la idea de que la experiencia de ese mundo externo es un producto de dos elementos que se combinan para darnos esa experiencia que se traduce en conocimiento: el sujeto y el objeto (una “construcción” muy complicada que cuesta mucho pensar cómo pudo convencer a nadie, incluído el mismo Kant); para él “la cosa en sí”, el objeto, es incognoscible. El subjetivismo toma plena conciencia de sí con los científicos mencionados: Niels Bohr, Heisenberg y un Einstein no entendido o aceptado y que no está por tanto en esa corriente de pensamiento, al fin y al cabo filosófico. En ese siglo, y en aún en el presente, la filosofía occidental ha servido de “maid servant” (servidora doméstica) de la ciencia. La idea de todos ellos (claro está, con la excepción de Einstein) era la de destruir el “mito de la objetividad”, y la denominación “uncertainty principle” (principio de incertidumbre), de Heisemberg es muy sujestivo a este respecto.
  Hemos de continuar contrastando ideas filosóficas modernas con puntos de vista metafísicos – la filosofía con la metafísica – , y de paso hacer mención de una escuela budista en particular, la de Yogachara (o come se deletree, o pronuncie, en castellano).

 

Addendum (10.5.16) (partly translated from another entry in this blog)Einstein and Gödel were exceptional in the recent positivist, and present relativistic and subjectivist, realm of ideas. The debate having Niels Bohr and Einstein in the middle is well known. These two, and also Gödel, never doubted the reality of the world or universe, which does not need an observer in order to be said to exist – by itself, that is. Their philosophical position can be called realism rather than relativism – the subject or observer being an essential part of the equation in the latter. The relativist view of things was led by the hand of the great physicists Heisenberg, Bohr and some others. The only difference between these two geniuses, apart from the fact that the first was a physicist and the second a mathematician, is that Gödel was in addition a convinced Platonist, neither an empiricist per se nor a rationalist. Since being quite young Gödel had a radical intuition of the consistency and rationality of everything that exists: there can be nothing that occurs without a cause, i.e., at random or accidental, and the human mind is able to discover those causes – the fundamental principles and structure of creation – in an a priori way.

This is the reason why Gödel never accepted the theory of evolution. But there is much more in this fascinating scientific, philosophical, and cultural story that goes far to explain the dominant currents in the 20th and 21st centuries and, thus, to understand what is happening in our present time, not only in the Western world.

About amartingarcia

General surgeon (retired). Studied Western philosophy at U of Toronto. Afterwards interest turned to advaita vedanta and non-duality for past 20 yrs, plus a long interlude in Sufism coinciding with that period. Now contributing in ’Advaita Vision’ with regular posts and discussions.
This entry was posted in Sin categoría. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s