Originally published 2 August 1993
In 1933, to celebrate its own centenary, the city of Chicago hosted a world’s fair celebrating a “Century of Progress” in science and industry. The official guide book quoted the poet Whittier: “And step by step, since time began, I see the steady gain of Man.”
Since time began. And what about in the other direction? Will our knowledge of nature continue to advance step by step till the end of time? Or are there limits to scientific progress?
There is no such thing as unlimited progress in science, says Alan Cromer, a physics professor at Northeastern University. He advances this view in an article in the May [1993] issue of the Northeastern University Magazine, and in a book, Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science, to be published this fall by Oxford University Press.
Cromer writes: “Science requires the belief in an external world that is independent of our thought and wishes, a world that operates according to its own set of consistent rules. Once we know these rules — and today we know the essential ones — we understand the basic mechanisms that govern the world.”
The laws of nature place limits on progress, says Cromer. Perpetual motion machines are impossible. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Everything is made of atoms. Principles such as these reside in the external world, not in our knowledge of the world.
From this, Cromer draws conclusions that many will consider pessimistic: Travel to the stars is impossible and communication with extraterrestrial civilizations is highly unlikely; the speed of land travel on Earth is approaching its upper limit; the moon landing may be an accomplishment in space never to be equaled; and so on.
We can expect breakthroughs in those areas of knowledge where we are still largely ignorant, says Cromer, such as molecular biology, brain research, and human behavior. But progress in those disciplines, too, is destined to come to an end. There is only so much to learn about nature, and when we know it, that’s it.
OK, so now we know where Cromer stands in the debate about progress that has raged at the heart of Western civilization — firmly against what he calls “the notion of unbounded technical advancement.”
The other side of the debate is defined by what the historian J. B. Bury called “the illusion of finality.”
Cromer is trapped in the illusion of finality.
In fact, many physicists these days seem prone to the illusion of finality. They talk about Theories of Everything, about knowing the mind of God, about final theories. We have nature pretty much doped out, they say; all that’s left are mopping up exercises. Once we know nature’s laws, technological progress will come to a halt.
Baloney.
There is a mistake and a danger in the illusion of finality.
The mistake is to assume that our formulation of nature’s laws is the same as the laws themselves. Cromer is right when he says that science requires a belief in an external world that is independent of our thought. But our knowledge of the world is provisional, metaphorical, incomplete. It is sheer hubris to assume that human thought fully captures nature’s essence.
For one thing, our minds are mere fragments of a universe that is vast, perhaps infinite, beyond our knowing. Can the part encompass the whole? Cromer would perhaps say that although the universe is vast, the laws of nature are few in number and easily contained within the human brain. But that view too confuses human science with the reality that inspires it.
I would guess that in the year 2093 the physics of the year 1993 will seem as partial and tentative as the physics of Aristotle seems to us today. Progress during the next century will occur in two ways. First, we will learn more about fundamental things, such as the way the particles of matter are related to pure space-time. Second, computer science will provide powerful new metaphors and mathematical methods for physical explanation.
The danger with the illusion of finality is that we will surrender optimism, vision, and wide-eyed anticipation to the New Age charlatans who purvey an open-ended cosmic destiny to anyone who forgoes reason for blind faith.
The illusion of finality also contributes to the chronic boredom that afflicts our time and makes us easy prey to those who would turn us into consumerist automatons.
Between the “notion of unbounded technical advancement” and the “illusion of finality” we should choose the former, not because we can prove the possibility of what has not yet come to be, but as a matter of optimism and hope.
Continued development of science and technology will pose huge moral and social dilemmas for future generations, entraining dire problems as well as hopeful solutions. Confidence in the idea of progress will help us avoid pessimism and defeat.
