A major flaw hindering the comprehension of physics is its complete abstraction from epistemology. The crucial point being made here is the need for a comprehensive cognitive epistemology that considers natural phenomena not in isolation from their historical context or with truncated cognitive connections. Such knowledge is no longer a mere luxury confined to the scientific laboratory. In fact, the tools employed within this laboratory have led to the emergence of two cognitive revolutions over the span of a century:
The first revolution, known as the theory of relativity, is represented by the concept of virtual illusion projection into the aether. The second revolution, quantum mechanics, involves the idea of the spectral separation of light waves. These two bodies of knowledge have had a profound impact in exposing the limitations of the human mind and its stagnation within a restricted intellectual framework. They have paved the way for a new era, characterized by space exploration and technological advancements. As we stand on the threshold of the latest revolution, the Artificial Intelligence Revolution, we are compelled to ask: What defines science? Where do its boundaries lie?
It is the very question that resurfaces at every pivotal moment in history, giving rise to philosophical, social, economic, and political deliberations regarding the trajectory of science in the future.
Science is a creative endeavor that shares similarities with other human activities. At its core, science is the pursuit of understanding the natural world by translating curiosity into explanations. Observation, a fundamental aspect of science, gives rise to questions that arise in every human mind, including children: How? Why? These questions serve as the gateway to formulating hypotheses, which allow for both errors and correctness. A well-constructed hypothesis can develop into a theory, but theory alone is not sufficient for scientific knowledge. Due to the limitations of our human tools, theories are subjected to analytical statistical approaches, such as mathematical logic, or experimental methods conducted in scientific laboratories. From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is challenging to separate the nature of science from the theory of knowledge. Science as knowledge differs from the scientist in the process of knowing, as the scientist explores his path to knowledge, considering that all assumptions are possible and not all assumptions are limited. Thus, the question of ‘Where are the limits of science?’ should be considered within the context of temporal reality. For instance, by the end of the nineteenth century, it was widely believed that physics had reached its cognitive pinnacle. Newton’s and Maxwell’s equations seemed to explain the natural world comprehensively. Even Max Planck, the renowned physicist and founder of quantum theory, was advised by his mentor to pursue a different field since it was believed that physics had almost exhausted its research. However, scientists were aware of lingering questions dubbed by Lord Kelvin as “clouds” of no great importance on the horizon. These clouds turned out to be the foundation of modern physics, including theoretical physics, cosmological physics, astronomy, energy physics, atomic physics, nuclear physics, and quantum mechanics. Over a century later, we have gained a deeper understanding of science through the tools at our disposal, but these achievements do not define the limits of science. As long as our knowledge remains part of the larger whole, science will continue to evolve. In this article, a specific example, ‘The Epistemology of Physics between Absolute Space and Relative Space,’ will be explored as a modest attempt to understand the philosophy of science.
Physics stands apart from pure thinking, as natural phenomena do not adhere to the constraints of the historical-philosophical paradigm. Even though this paradigm may impede scientific thought from taking revolutionary leaps forward, the epistemology of physics, in my view, resides in the domain of ideas and imagination. These two aspects are intricately linked by a bond or a relationship that exists within the framework of the scientific system.
The physical phenomenon is synonymous with the natural phenomenon. In the time of the Greek philosophers, understanding nature relied on sensory descriptions, whereby the mind required stimuli to establish a connection between the external world and intellectual comprehension. Thus, the absence of senses meant the absence of phenomena, and vice versa. Aristotle, for instance, argued that when a body comes to a stop after being propelled by a force, the cessation of movement (stillness) represents just one aspect of rest. However, explaining the intangible impulse—the force that halted the body—proved challenging within the animistic philosophical framework. This perspective posited the existence of a soul within the inert body, suggesting that the soul of an inanimate object became depleted through movement and subsequently ceased.
Aristotle might have come closer to reality if he had divorced the cognitive system from the distortions of metaphysics and embraced the space of logical imagination or rationalism. René Descartes laid the foundations for this approach, which was further developed by Francis Bacon, who questioned the underlying connection between the senses and the mind through logical analysis. Building on this new understanding, Galileo employed the power of imagination and introduced the experimental method. He conducted studies on objects falling from specific heights, observing their free fall—indicating that they were not subject to external influences, whether tangible or abstract, such as air resistance. In physics, this type of movement is known as frictional force.
However, even within this experimental framework, our understanding of the phenomenon remained incomplete. The relationship between a body and the forces acting upon it remained ambiguous. It was Isaac Newton who was able to shed light on this relationship, formulating the fundamental law that governs the motion of free-falling bodies (a body subjected to the force of Earth’s gravity experiences acceleration at a specific value). This law applies not only to falling bodies but also to all static and moving bodies, which remain in a state of balance in their rest or motion unless acted upon by an external force. This tendency of bodies to maintain their state of equilibrium is known as the phenomenon of inertia. Newton’s formulation of these explanations into systematic algebraic laws, combined with his law of gravity, represents one of the greatest scientific achievements in human history. These equations and laws remain to humanity as remarkable scientific masterpieces.
The intellectual collaboration involved in establishing the new paradigm did not simply yield individual explanations for specific phenomena. Rather, it gave rise to a coherent framework known as absolute space. By studying the motion of objects at a given moment, one could predict their future position and velocity. According to the proponents of the Enlightenment who embraced determinism, the universe can be seen as an exquisitely precise and flawless mechanical apparatus. This cosmic space is governed by sacred constants, and the only variables are the relationships that connect these phenomena within a sequence of events unfolding along a one-dimensional timeline from the past to the future.
But what if the problem lies in the subjectivity of the phenomenon itself? What does it truly mean for something to be in the past? How do we define the present moment? And what exactly constitutes the future? What is the meaning of time itself?
The inability to establish a precise explanation of natural phenomena reflects the stagnation within the scientific system. The association between Newton’s mechanical theory and Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetic waves faced a significant challenge: the absence of a physical medium for the transmission of these waves through space.The dilemma at hand did not lack a remix of the connections involved in analyzing the phenomenon. Its existence was, in fact, the absence of a novel scientific mechanism that could test emerging ideas. This idea found its origins in the brilliant mind of the greatest of all physicists Albert Einstein, who concluded that there is no aether and that electromagnetic waves do not require a medium for transmission. Instead, they constitute a new fabric of relationships. In contrast to Newtonian mechanics, where speed varies based on distance and time within an absolute space governed by determinism, this different conceptual space, with the constant speed of light as its foundation, treats distance and time as variables. It is here that Einstein’s imaginative approach comes into play. I believe that his genius stems from a precise understanding of the epistemological framework of physics, which encompasses the interplay between ideas, imagination, and relationships. For example, how does time vary within the context of absolute and deterministic space? The answer lies in the understanding that space is not an absolute reference point but a relative one, contingent upon the frames of reference for the observer.
T1604
