2. 职称英语
  3. Is science infinite? Can it keep giving us profound insights into the world

Is science infinite? Can it keep giving us profound insights into the world

游客2024-03-08  43
问题     Is science infinite? Can it keep giving us profound insights into the world forever? Or is it already bumping into limits? In his 2011 book The Beginning of Infinity physicist David Deutsch made the case for boundlessness. When I asked him about consciousness, he replied; "I think nothing worth understanding will always remain a mystery. And consciousness seems apparently worth understanding. "
    At a meeting I just attended in Switzerland, " The Mystery of Human Consciousness," another famous British physicist, Martin Rees, challenged Deutsch’s optimism. In that essay Rees calls The Beginning of Infinity "provocative and excellent" but disputes Deutsch’s central claim that science is boundless. Science "will hit the buffers (缓冲区) at some point," Rees warns.
    There are two reasons why this might happen. The optimistic one is that we clean up and understand certain areas (such as atomic physics) to the point that there’s no more to say. A second, more worrying possibility is that we’ll reach the limits of what our brains can grasp. There might be concepts, crucial to a full understanding of physical reality. Efforts to understand very complex systems, such as our own brains, might well be the first to hit such limits. Perhaps complex collectives of atoms, whether brains or electronic machines, can never know all there is to know about themselves.
    The riddle of consciousness is a synecdoche for the riddle of humanity. What are we, really? For most of our history, religion has given us the answer. We are immortal souls, children of a loving god, striving to reach heaven. Most modern scientists reject these religious explanations, but they cannot agree on an alternative. They have proposed a bewildering variety of answers to the question of what we really are.
    Science will never resolve these disagreements and converge on a single, true theory of what we are, for two reasons. One is that we will never have a "consciousness meter," an objective means of measuring consciousness in non-human things. The other is that we are too varying, too creative, to be captured by single theory. Science itself keeps transforming us, with technologies as diverse as brain implants, genetic therapy and ideas as diverse as queer theory and integrated information theory. To be human means to be a work in progress.
    Deutsch’s claim that science is infinite also has a contradiction at its core. He wants science to solve the deepest mysteries, like consciousness, and yet to have more mysteries to solve, forever. That is a radical assertion about the structure of nature, which to my mind reflects wishful thinking rather than hard-headed realism.
    Deutsch is both wrong and right. He is wrong that science can solve every mystery, and especially consciousness. We will never understand, once and for all, who we are. But Deutsch is right that science is potentially infinite, if infinite means never-ending. It is precisely because we can never achieve total self-knowledge that we will keep seeking it forever. [br] What does the author think of Deutsch’s point of view?
选项 A、Partially acceptable.
B、Completely irrational.
C、Somewhat groundless.
D、Quite encouraging.
答案 A
解析 由题干中的author和Deutsch’s point of view定位到原文最后一段。观点态度题。本题考查作者对多伊奇的观点的看法。在定位段中作者指出，多伊奇的看法有错也有对，错在他认为科学可以解决所有谜题，对在认识到科学的潜力是无限的。可见，作者认为多伊奇的观点有些是可以接受的，故答案为A)。B)“完全不合理”和D)“非常令人振奋”，说法都过于绝对，不符合作者一分为二的分析，故排除；C)“有点缺乏根据”，由原文可知，作者并没有讨论多伊奇的观点的论据问题，故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3515603.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)