Whether or not humans have the capacity to objectively comprehend the cosmos is a discomforting topic; however, it is an important cosmological question that needs answered if scientists want to build the most accurate and honest concept of the universe. This paper examines this question and attempts to gain a better understanding of the perceptive capabilities of humans and their relation to external reality.
Using an interdisciplinary literature review approach, the research highlights various branches of science in order to examine the limits of human perception and cognition. The scientists consulted include Eagleman, who presents the concept that experienced reality is a construct created by the brain; Hoffman, with his insistence that evolution shaped people to perceive and seek fitness points rather than truth; and multiple physicists including Barbour, Greene, Planck, and Tyson, each of whom tackle the subject of cosmology from a unique perspective.
Although it cannot be declared with complete certainty, the chances of humans perceiving external reality as it truly exists are extremely low. As with other lifeforms, Homo sapiens evolved to adapt to their environment and lifestyle according to their surrounding resources, and, as such, their perception is designed for survival rather than absolute truth. The physicists disagree in some fashions, such as in the argument of the existence of time and where physics is heading in the future. However, they each agree on one point—we do not, and may never, know the true nature of the cosmos.
Abstract
Whether or not humans have the capacity to objectively comprehend the cosmos is a discomforting topic; however, it is an important cosmological question that needs answered if scientists want to build the most accurate and honest concept of the universe. The following research examines this question and attempts to gain a better understanding of the perceptive capabilities of humans and their relation to external reality. Using an interdisciplinary literature review approach, the research highlights various branches of science in order to examine the limits of human perception and cognition. The scientists consulted include Eagleman, who presents the concept that experienced reality is a construct created by the brain; Hoffman, with his insistence that evolution shaped people to perceive and seek “fitness points” rather than truth; and multiple physicists including Barbour, Greene, Planck, and Tyson, each of whom tackle the subject of cosmology from a unique perspective. Although it cannot be declared with complete certainty, the chances of humans perceiving external reality as it truly exists are extremely low. As with other lifeforms, Homo sapiens evolved to adapt to their environment and lifestyle according to their surrounding resources, and, as such, their perception is designed for survival rather than absolute truth. The physicists disagree in some fashions, such as in the argument of the existence of time and where physics is heading in the future. However, they each agree on one point—we do not, and may never, know the true nature of the cosmos.
Perception vs. Reality: The Human Inability to See the Truth
For eons, Homo sapiens have studied their environment in an attempt to understand the world around them and their place within it. The collective knowledge of the species has grown from primitive explanations, such as the imagined relationship between certain behaviors and natural phenomena, to present-day explanations of spacetime, gravity, and celestial bodies. People tend to cling on to the narcissistic assumption that they have the ability to define and describe external reality—not in relation to human limitations, but in absolute terms. As knowledge and science have progressed, humans have drifted farther away from center stage. Hoffman posits that “we use to think that everything is about us and that therefore the earth must be the center of the universe. When Copernicus and Galileo discovered that it isn’t, this forced us to adjust astrology, but more importantly, it forced us to transform our conception of ourselves” (201). The new evidence that these great thinkers presented changed how people related to the universe. Recent advancements in various branches of science, such as physics, neurobiology, and the science of evolution, are on the verge of causing another major shift in the collective perspective, making scientists question whether people have the ability to perceive what truly goes on in the external world. Humans, inflated by an inner ego, with access only to their internal model of the world, believe they are witnessing the true nature of the universe; however, people are limited biologically and evolutionarily in their perceptive abilities, and, thus, may only ever comprehend the universe in relation to themselves and are incapable of knowing the objective reality of the cosmos.
Before exploring whether people have the ability to understand the universe, it is important to understand why they are driven to search for such understanding. Early ancestors attempted to understand natural phenomena in relation to their behaviors; Copernicus and Galileo wanted to know the Earth’s position in the universe; and modern scientists are yet working on the solution to unite general relativity with quantum mechanics. But why do humans put so much energy into such complicated questions? Of the various philosophers pondering this question, Stephen Hawking presents one of the strongest hypotheses: “The real reason we are seeking a complete theory, is that we want to understand the universe and feel we are not just the victims of dark and mysterious forces. If we understand the universe, then we control it, in a sense” (“Godel and the End of Physics”). In many ways, it is not the excitement of discovery that drives humans to seek out cosmological answers, rather it is fear of the unknown, the fear of human insignificance and helplessness in a seemingly infinite and mysterious universe.
When approaching such a broad topic, it is important to utilize interdisciplinary research methods to assist in forming a comprehensive argument. If one focuses solely on a specific branch of knowledge—astrophysics, biology, logic—they will have an incomplete understanding. No one area of knowledge or force of nature can answer the complex questions of cosmology. To explore if humans are capable of experiencing external reality and, thereby, comprehend the objective truths of the universe, an interdisciplinary approach, utilizing physical science, neurology, and evolution, can provide much more thorough answers than examining the topic via one method of thinking.
Planck, Tyson, Green, and Barbour each offer unique ideas stemming from the realm of physical science, and they present what science currently thinks that it knows about the universe. Planck lays out the general concept behind physics. He writes of the “two theorems that form the cardinal hinge on which the whole structure of physical science turns… (1) There is a real outer world which exists independently of our act of knowing, and, (2) The real outer world is not directly knowable” (Planck 82). Though he devoted much time and energy into researching how the world works, particularly at a quantum level, Planck understood that barriers exist between knowledge and reality, and it was this barrier, rather than particles or planets, that drives curiosity and the progression of physical science.
In his Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, Neil DeGrasse Tyson provides a brief overview of the current model of the universe, detailing the theorized beginning of The Big Bang, and discussing where astrophysics stands now—in a battle to link up Einstein’s general relativity with Planck’s world of quantum mechanics, which have yet to be brought into agreement with one another. Tyson asserts that humankind does not and cannot possess all of the answers, stating that “The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you,” an assertation that, although it may make some uncomfortable, rings true (Tyson 13). He argues that people are “inflated by delusions of significance and fed by cultural assumptions that human beings are more important than everything else in the universe,” which can make one feel rather insignificant and silly, but which helps to put the question of human perception into perspective (Tyson 198). Humanity has spent thousands of years attempting to make sense of the world; however, the cosmos does not return the sense of curiosity, and it will not make any effort to bend itself to the will of humans.
Offering another facet of physical science, Brian Greene dives deep into superstring theory, which is widely accepted as a potential solution to merging the science of the big—general relativity—with the science of the small—quantum mechanics. He explains, “According to string theory, if we could examine these particles with even greater precision—a precision many orders of magnitude beyond our present technological capacity—we would find that each is not pointlike, but instead consists on a tiny one-dimensional loop” (Greene 14). Unfortunately, as he goes on to explain, physicists do not yet possess the technological power to decipher whether this theory is true, and he states that “using today’s technology we would need an accelerator the size of a galaxy to see individual strings,” adding technological limitations to the multiple arguments against the human ability to experience the world as it truly is (Greene 215).
Julian Barbour presents a radically different perspective, which could entirely change the model of the cosmos that scientists currently use to explain the universe. Rather than relying on four-dimensional Einsteinian spacetime, Barbour theorizes that reality is devoid of both time and motion, positing that people do not experience a consistently flowing river of time, but that they experience “Nows” along a certain path among infinite potential paths in the universe (16). The path is created by perception, as opposed to humans perceiving the inevitable path. He writes, “It is not that before the measurement the particle does not have a definite momentum and we simply do not know it. Instead, all momenta in the superposition are present as potentialities, and measurement forces one of them to be actualized” (Barbour 203). Such a concept destroys Einstein’s spacetime, which people can intrinsically relate with, and which scientists have utilized for more than a century to study the universe.
Switching perspectives, David Eagleman, a professor and researcher of neuroscience, offers psychologically challenging concepts regarding the limitations of human perception caused by biology. He argues strongly for the idea that humans are incapable of directly experiencing external reality, and, as such, “that our picture of the external world isn’t necessarily an accurate representation” (Eagleman 39). Everything people think that they can see, smell, touch, and taste are actually electrochemical reactions in the brain that help them to navigate the world in which they live. He writes, “It feels as though you have direct access to the world through your senses…in fact it’s all happening in the mission control center of the brain” (Eagleman 41). Outside the brain there are no colors or sounds or smells; those are just perceptions the brain evolved to experience for humans to survive in their environment. If humans are unable to experience the objective reality of their immediate surroundings, it is highly unlikely that they can experience and understand the truths in the entirety of the cosmos.
To understand the future of cosmology, it is important to understand the past. The build-up to the current understanding of the universe did not start with ancient celestial artifacts or Aristotelian physics; it goes back much further, as shown in Harari’s Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Harari describes three major physical and social periods of advancements—the Cognitive Revolution, Agricultural Revolution, and Scientific Revolution—among the human species, which led to the present state of human physical and social evolution. One of his most important assertations regarding early hunter-gatherers is that “Sapiens did not forage only for food and materials. They foraged for knowledge as well” (Harari 48). This concept suggests an evolutionary drive for knowledge, which helps to explain the human desire to understand the cosmos. In the past, Homo sapiens had a limited amount of collective knowledge and, compared with modern society, scarcely any technological innovations. As such, much of their drive for learning was dedicated to their immediate environment and directly impacted their survival. After the Agricultural Revolution, though, humans were able to settle down and have a relatively steady and convenient supply of food, which led them to expand their quest for knowledge, allowing them to devote time an energy into the attempt to understand a larger portion of the world.
Expanding on the evolutionary argument, Hoffman argues that humans did not evolve to see the world as it truly is; they evolved to survive and reproduce, and, as such, their perceptions are geared towards survival, not truth. Much of his argument relies on his Fitness-Beats-Truth (FBT) Theorem, which posits an objective reality does exist, but “that natural selection does not shape us to perceive the structure of that reality,” rather, humans, as well as all other species, have evolved “to perceive fitness points, and how to get them” (Hoffman 61). To solidify his concept, Hoffman relates our perception of the world to a computer screen. He writes, “To ask whether my perception of the moon is veridical—whether I see the true color, shape, and position of a moon that exists even when no one looks—is like asking whether the paintbrush icon in my graphics app reveals the true color, shape, and positions of a paintbrush inside my computer” (Hoffman 77). Along with objects, Hoffman, like Barbour, argues that even spacetime is an evolutionary construct designed to support survival and reproduction. It is an interface that people use, and “We have mistaken the limits of our interface for an insight into reality” (Hoffman 187). Although his ideas are disquieting, they are rational and supported by his FBT Theorem.
[...]
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.