Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: what is understanding?



Earlier I conjected:

I think understanding of physics is never attained.

Unfortunately I now think I erred, committing implicitly the grievous
error of reification against which I have railed so fervently in the
past. That *is* what I said; what I *should* have said (and what I
admit I meant) is this:

"I think an understanding of Nature is never attained."

My arrogant equation of our knowledge of Nature, which we call
"physics", with the object of our interest, Nature herself, is
deplorable. It is an error I try hard not to make, but I certainly
made it here. In this case the error is compounded by the fact that
physics, *per se*, is not unfathomable. It has a finite depth. It is
mathematically isomorphic to Nature, often to a degree that makes it
only falsifiable in principle, but it admits only of a limited depth
of understanding. Physics is our way of understanding Nature. We are
limited to describing her, and we should never forget that. In this
description, however, lies the great reward we call understanding.
It is our privilege as physicists to perceive more acutely than most
her underlying beauty.

Two things should be kept in mind as limitations. The first was the
valid point of my posting, that we achieve different levels of
understanding. No one ever made me more aware of this than did
Richard Feynman, a giant who stood on the shoulders of others. His
perception was acute to the degree that I dispair of attaining it
myself even as I rejoice in understanding the insights he still
provides me long after his death. Feynman gives me a good indication
of the dynamic range over which the concept of "understanding" of
physics must be quantified!

The second thing to keep in mind is that one must also be a bit
humble. I think some poets also perceive Nature deeply, perhaps in a
way which is as inaccessible to me as my way is to most of them. I
will probably never share those perceptions to any appreciable depth
just as I expect that most of my introductory physics students will
never share my perceptions. Fortunately there is still so much more
to understand that is still accessible to me in physics that I shall
surely die before I exhaust it. I will remain a physicist instead of
becoming a poet.

Leigh Hunt Palmer