Thanks for pointing to this recent Discover article, focusing on Roger Penrose and his views regarding physics. He stands for me as being perhaps the greatest living physicist and yet one not who would be so considered among many of his peers; or for that matter other so called modern intellectuals. This being since primarily he doesn’t subscribe to or comply with what would be considered the current norm, where most insist nature lacks both uniqueness and purpose; yet rather represents to being simply a statistical anomaly, where life and consciousness in general being a character representing a subset of symptoms marking our own particular reality, rather than a requirement (axiom) for there being a reality at all.
I have always thought it stand in contradiction for those that apply reason to discovering the truths of nature and trust only it as being able to do so and yet see no contradiction in denying, at the same time, nature itself having such a character at the root of its very existence. This has often had me to wonder if such people are actually interested in discovering truth or rather more concerned with mandating what that should be. For me this forms to be both the paradox and hypocrisy of this epoch of science, for how could one insist that nature is a reasonless construct, when it has demonstrated as capable of producing beings that actually have it. It leaves me to further wonder, if they are not so much denying nature in having reason, yet rather nominating themselves to being it.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I do have a great admiration for Roger Penrose. He is a honest physicist, no matter how wrong he is proven to be, if that turns out to be the case, in the future. I do appreciate his standpoint.
October 9, 2009 at 8:21 am
Hi Christine,
Thanks for pointing to this recent Discover article, focusing on Roger Penrose and his views regarding physics. He stands for me as being perhaps the greatest living physicist and yet one not who would be so considered among many of his peers; or for that matter other so called modern intellectuals. This being since primarily he doesn’t subscribe to or comply with what would be considered the current norm, where most insist nature lacks both uniqueness and purpose; yet rather represents to being simply a statistical anomaly, where life and consciousness in general being a character representing a subset of symptoms marking our own particular reality, rather than a requirement (axiom) for there being a reality at all.
I have always thought it stand in contradiction for those that apply reason to discovering the truths of nature and trust only it as being able to do so and yet see no contradiction in denying, at the same time, nature itself having such a character at the root of its very existence. This has often had me to wonder if such people are actually interested in discovering truth or rather more concerned with mandating what that should be. For me this forms to be both the paradox and hypocrisy of this epoch of science, for how could one insist that nature is a reasonless construct, when it has demonstrated as capable of producing beings that actually have it. It leaves me to further wonder, if they are not so much denying nature in having reason, yet rather nominating themselves to being it.
Best,
Phil
October 9, 2009 at 8:48 am
Hi Phil,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I do have a great admiration for Roger Penrose. He is a honest physicist, no matter how wrong he is proven to be, if that turns out to be the case, in the future. I do appreciate his standpoint.
Best,
Christine
October 12, 2009 at 1:33 am
[...] link in a blog that I occasionally visit leads to an article/interview with Roger Penrose – one of the leading minds in physics [...]