Recessions are not only in the economy — in some areas of science, they have been going on for a century. Thus, a number of contemporary physicists regret to admit that over the past century, scientists are not many that could add to the baggage of knowledge about the universe, which accumulated by predecessors. Ideas ran after Einstein and Max Planck. If the period of early modern times, when science for the first time in history has found an optimal and precise methodological apparatus and firmly on his feet, theoretical physics developed incrementally, in the twentieth century, its progress seems to be braked. Experts offer different versions of why it came out — the ethical, economic, social … One of the more fascinating hypotheses — bio, according to which human brain is already headed for the limit of their own cognitive abilities.
Either BMW "Zaporozhets"?
Look at human brain as the universal machine zaniya unscientific. He — the inheritance of religion: specifically, the holy books say that a person is fully endowed with the ability to distinguish good from evil. Rene Descartes, one of the bigger thinkers of modern times, believed that God created the human mind in order to serve as the "natural light" that can make the sign of all the corners of the universe and learn all its laws. But modern biology is not so idealistic: we have acquired brain developed through evolution, implying that this body meets the needs of our Protz on longer, anthropogenes early stages. Needs were common — to survive and multiply. The mastery of speech, fire, tools helped people solve such puzzles, but whether this contributes to quantum physics? The answer is negative: the modern evolutionary psychologists are fully convinced that reasoning about complex matters to anyone else did not help to survive and that's why most people's brains poorly adapted to scientific zaniyu.
The American-Canadian psychologist Steven Pinker gives a beautiful example — illustrates this point: being a doctor Harvard University, he has repeatedly asked different groups of students the task of formal logic. Conditions were as follows: in the audience sits biologists and arithmetic. Neither biologist — not a mathematician. All biologists are playing chess. Question: what judgment can be derived from these criteria? During the long years of his work in fact none of the students gave the correct answer. Meanwhile, a computer program that trained formal logic, simply sees it: some of which are in the audience playing chess. Why does our brain has not previously been thought of before? It is easy to guess: this formal conclusion is so obvious that no one will take it into account. The brain is not "locked up" under such "nonsense" of the problem, as for the survival of our Protz opportunities for formal logic was just worthless.
Another challenge from the same area: Linda walks to rallies in defense of the rights of women, studies the history of the struggle for women their rights and protesting against harassment in the companies. The possibility of any facts above: a) Linda works in a bank or b) Linda works in a bank and all of this is a feminist? The vast majority of respondents choose the second option, while from the standpoint of logic, of course, that the possibility of a single event (works in a bank) is always higher than the direct 2-facts (works in a bank and is a feminist). But our brain does not feel he devotes his attention first on the mental rather than the logical connection, trying to find a character that Linda on her actions.
Specifically, tasks that are practical and relevant to real life, the brain snaps as nuts: a series of tests carried out by one of the founders of the South American Center for Evolutionary Psychology Leda Cosmides, found that the brain is best to work with an example where one of the actors trying to fool anyone. "For a man, as a being public, the ability to, on the one hand, to lie, and on the other — to identify someone else's deception is one of the central" — says Victor Characters, Deputy Director for Research of the Institute of Psychology RAS.
Meanwhile, here are the "useless" task just lie in the basis of at least some science. Psychologists first half of the twentieth century, conducting research IQ middle of the native peoples of Africa and South America were amazed, how low the same mind with these savages. "Ethnographers working in Siberia early twentieth century, lead follow-up example: when they asked Aboriginal puzzle like" All the people in Africa are dark. Barambo lives in Africa. What is the color of his skin? "Constant answer was," We did not beheld, how do we know? "- Says Stanislav anthropologist Michael. Specifically, such responses have formed in the end the widespread perception that Black and uneducated hunters and gatherers logical possibilities worse than that of white civilized.
But in reality, does not mind the natives is lower than that of white men. The fact is that scientists, as a graduate of the Institute, stunningly dragged on formal logic, while the natives, it is simply not needed. And the fact that all tests are built specifically for the use of formal logic, and resulted in lower achievement of Aboriginal people. "There is no one definition of crazy — says Dr. Yuri Alexandrov, head of the laboratory of the neurophysiological basis of the psyche of the Institute of Psychology RAS. — In my opinion, the most valuable kind of mind — the ability to solve unusual tasks in a nontrivial way. " This is one of the main differences between man and animals: it is not simply adapt to the environment — he creates his habitat.
The same Steven Pinker gives a fascinating explanation of why the South American students studying in a country with one of the most democratic systems of education, constantly occupy the last place in the international competitions in arithmetic, while the South Korean, whose training is based on rote learning — on the contrary, usually in among the favorites. It would seem that the South American model encourages creative process, teaches the kid to think. But in reality, focus on independent thinking works against the result: failure to the fact that the average man can not open anew the laws of arithmetic — he can only learn them. The discovery of these laws — reward those whose ability to zaniyu markedly superior to the average. How unfortunate it did not sound, the inequality of people — not a Nazi invention. But even geniuses cohort useful millennia to erect a building of arithmetic, which in American schools offer create per lesson.
The more abstract field of knowledge, the harder our brains to ponder about it. Gerhard Vollmer, one of the giants of evolutionary epistemology, introduced the concept of "mesocosm": this is the world that our brain makes way for the senses. It is three-dimensional, all the substances in it are divided into solid, gaseous and watery. He has the color, smell and taste, its one-piece and a non-discrete objects. But recent scientific theories suggest that measurements even more (by string theory, more authoritative in modern science, there are 10 or even 11). Objects consist of particles, and those in turn — of other particles. Many phenomena — are not what they appear to our bodies emotions: for example, a color that sees our eyes, and infrared radiation, wh
ich our skin is feeling the heat, in reality close in the 1st and the same electric range.
Why do we perceive specifically mesocosm, not real peace? The answer is clear: the living creatures there is no need to take 11 measurements or register bodies emotions individual particles. Any features that do not help the survival will be rejected evolution. We not only can not create a true picture of the universe — we are hard for her to think and reason, as our brain works in accordance with the logic of acting in the mesocosm. "We know, for example, that people — being visual: 90% of all the images that the brain uses in his work, visual, — says the candidate psychological sciences Love Ryndina. — This is a great help to us in everyday life, but if you are the voice of an ordinary particles of it will confuse you: we represent electrons hard balls and unconsciously project onto them all the same features that are typical of hard sphere of our macroscopic world, be it soccer balls or cannonballs. " Even more difficult to us to realize the cause and effect relationship relevant to the quantum level of matter. In fact as mesocosm? Item or is or it is not, it can not appear out of nowhere and just vanish into nowhere. And in the world of elementary particles anything can happen. Moreover, many of the particles can exist at once and do not exist (as in the famous example of an atom Schrödinger) or directly in the various places (like an electron cloud inside electrical) or be directly particle of a wave (like photons). Immediately create a significant slip of the tongue: all this talk about the wave-particle nature of photons or simultaneously finding an electron in a few places — all just euphemisms invented by us specifically because we can neither understand nor imagine how particles behave in nature.
And it imposes the most severe restrictions on the work of our brain with complex mathematical and physical puzzles. "Already at this time, scientists do not nanodevices based on technical solutions from first principles of physics, but a way to poke: to work — works like — is not clear," — said a senior researcher at the Ioffe Institute. AF Ioffe RAS Stanislav Ordin. To further develop the science, people have to use a kind of "prosthesis" — computers, doing what you do not know how to our brain. And yet they are not capable of almost everything, because the scientific The knowledge involves not only complex calculations, and hypotheses, and it is not easily accessible machines.
CHURCH 25th frame
Fortunately, people have learned to not only live with the limitations of a similar nature of the brain, and use it for their pleasure. Perfectly clear that we humans are able to look telly and movies precisely because of the imperfections of our eyes and the brain: the refresh rate of about 24 frames per second, we do not notice that the display is in fact not moving, and is a series of pictures and or completely a huge number of "lines" that the beam vacuum tube with high speed writing on the display. Clarification of limitation is the same: the ability to create moving objects with a highest frequency in real life is completely worthless for the person (here, for example, for cats it is very valuable — to fool their eyes and brain, the frame must be updated 50 times per second).
But if this "flaw" — it is far not the only one that distinguishes our brain, then if there are any other events that are similar or television and movies, for example, images of "impossible" figures, which are able to prick your brain? Yes, a lot. French anthropologists Pascal Boyer and Scott Atran believe that a person's ability to believe in the supernatural — just one of the consequences of such imperfections. Scientists lead track separating mapping. A man can behold the beast painted in several curves lines on a sheet of paper due to the fact that his brain "has" the ability to complete construction of the natural contour of an object, part of which is nestled (the ability to notice a deer in the bush, of which stick out of his horn, of course, came in handy in the course of evolution) . Similarly, the useful ability of the brain to connect voedinyzhdy actions of people and animals in their mental properties gives a side effect: we see the logical and mental connection, where they in fact do not: we begin to fear the dark cat or guessing in the series hanging over us prosaic failures wrath of higher creatures .
The conclusion that is imposed on this concept, perhaps more pessimistic than arising from speculation Follmer: the belief in the supernatural and the related antisayentizm, hitherto appropriate for most people on the planet, probably are not going anywhere, despite all the progress of enlightenment . They choose to believe in that, for example, global warming is not due to release of industrial gases, as well as Predskazamus suffered. And fortunately (or unfortunately), these people look at the world itself does not prevent live.
As for the complex areas of theoretical science, then will they develop further and to follow their revolutionary discoveries, based not only on new facts, and on the excellent work of thought, very hard to predict. There is hope: Perelman also found on the Poincare conjecture, remained unproved for over 100 years. The successful combination of talent and a decent education still works wonders. The failure of just in time such miracles are happening all less often. Will the population of the earth to make a "general theory of everything" earlier than even the genius of brains run into a reinforced concrete barrier constraints imposed by the nature of our cognitive capabilities? This question is even more difficult than the most cursed prepyadstviya theoretical physics.