- The paper introduces a double postulate that asserts both the existence of non-evident fundamental axioms and the human capacity to discover them as the cornerstone of modern physics.
- It contrasts European modern physics with China’s technological tradition, emphasizing that a cultural infrastructure based on Biblical beliefs was key to scientific breakthroughs.
- It illustrates through historical comparisons, including examples from the Soviet era, that robust intellectual freedom is crucial for the development of revolutionary scientific ideas.
This paper (1106.6345) by Gennady Gorelik addresses the "Needham Question," which asks why modern science, particularly physics, emerged in 17th-century Europe and not in other civilizations like China, despite their significant technological advancements. The author proposes a new answer centered on the emergence of fundamental physics and its cultural infrastructure, specifically the influence of the Biblical worldview.
The paper argues that the key novelty of modern physics, as pioneered by figures like Galileo and later exemplified by Einstein, was not merely experimentalism or mathematization, but a fundamental belief structure expressed in a double postulate:
- Existence of Fundamental Axioms: There are non-evident, underlying axioms or "foundation stones" (fundamentum) from which all physical laws can be deduced. These are not immediately obvious from empirical observation.
- Human Capacity and Freedom: The human mind is capable of probing this fundamental level of the Universe to understand its workings, and any individual is free to contribute to this process.
This approach differs significantly from what the author terms "Archimedean physics," which deals with directly evident notions and their mathematical descriptions without necessarily positing an invisible, fundamental structure. Galileo's invention of the concept of "movement in vacuum" is presented as an early example of such a non-evident fundamental notion, leading to laws like inertia and free fall.
The paper contends that the source of the early originators' "faith in fundamental laws," as noted by Einstein regarding Kepler, was their genuine religious faith, rooted in the Biblical worldview. This worldview, especially prominent in Europe during the Reformation era (when the Bible's cultural role was amplified by Gutenberg's printing press and theological debates), provided intellectual and inspirational support for the double postulate of fundamental physics. The concept of a supreme Creator-Lawgiver imposing unbreakable laws on Nature resonated with the idea of discoverable physical laws. The Biblical emphasis on human freedom and responsibility, created in God's image, supported the second postulate regarding the human capacity and freedom to understand these laws.
While factors like social context (capitalism), specific ideologies (Protestantism), mathematization, and interaction between scholars and craftsmen have been proposed as answers to the Needham Question, the paper suggests these are insufficient on their own. It argues that the fundamental worldview supporting the search for non-evident, universal laws was the critical missing piece in other cultures.
The author supports this argument through comparisons:
- China: Despite advanced technology and philosophical traditions, China lacked the concept of "law of nature" in the European sense, hindering the adoption of modern science when introduced by missionaries. The idea of laws decreed by a transcendent Legislator governing nature was not easily graspable within existing intellectual frameworks.
- Russia: The comparatively quicker adoption and development of modern science in Russia, despite socio-economic differences with Western Europe, is attributed to its shared Biblical civilization heritage, which provided a similar cultural infrastructure for potential scientists.
- Soviet Union (Physics vs. Biology): The contrasting fates of physics and biology under Stalin highlight the practical importance of intellectual freedom for scientific progress. While Lysenko's suppression of intellectual freedom crippled biology, the state's urgent need for nuclear weapons forced a degree of intellectual freedom for physicists, allowing the field to flourish at the highest levels. This serves as a modern, albeit extreme, example illustrating that the "intellectual freedom" component of the double postulate is crucial for scientific invention.
The paper also touches on potential downsides of this worldview, noting how Galileo's commitment to the "truth" of his findings, stemming from his deeply held beliefs, led to conflict with authorities when he refused to present his theory merely as a hypothesis. However, this conflict ultimately contributed to the propagation of his methods.
In essence, the paper's practical implication for understanding scientific progress is that beyond specific methodologies (experiment, math) and societal structures, a cultural environment that fosters a belief in the existence of underlying, knowable fundamental principles and champions intellectual freedom is crucial for generating truly fundamental scientific breakthroughs. While the specific historical link traced to the Bible is contextual to 17th-century Europe, the underlying requirements – faith in fundamental reality structure and intellectual freedom to explore it – are presented as universal prerequisites for the kind of deep scientific progress that defines modernity.
