the physics after the year 6000

Here I stay and think about what makes a discovery something important… It may be the way of thinking, it may be the result itself, it may be a new approach to some subject? In all cases it is not what is commonly described today “a discovery”. Indeed one cannot hope to discover much today keeping a certain way of thinking. I was looking at a nice movie about egyptian and greek mathematicians. Apparently they differ by a very important aspect and no, it is not related to the results but more to the way of thinking. The egyptians apparently invented numbers and operations with numbers but lacked some sort of ability to generalize. It took 4000 years for people to reach that level of abstraction to invent an axiomatic approach to mathematics. Nowadays however we think also in some patterns and one may consider we need another 4000 years to emerge from the current patterns of thinking. They are not “true” and science is not “additive” or “cumulative”. Cumulation in science keeps you in the same patterns of thinking. It is a radical shift from this pattern that gives you the possibility to see a bit of the “physics after the year 6000″…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s