Humanity’s understanding of the universe and its physics changes our conceptual ideas and natural philosophy. The author commences explaining the transition from Newton to Einstein, from mechanical laws to general relativity, the idea that space is not distinct from matter. Space ‘curves’ where there is matter, such as waves at seas, and it expands and contracts (e.g., oscillating universe and the collapse of stars into black holes), R describing its energy. In the rival quantum mechanics, however, which dates to Max Planck and Walter Heisenberg, electrons (and other constituent particles) jump from one atomic orbit to another, also supplanting Newtonian mechanics. No object has a definite, fixed position; the periodic table indicates proclivities. Reality is the interaction of quanta as explained by the Standard Model, effectively but not so eloquently as general relativity. The two paradigms conflict.
Next, the presence of heat indicates the future will be different from the past. Heat transfers to colder elements, it indicates friction. However, it transfers not by law but by probability, again demonstrating the relational character of nature. Consequently, physicists and philosophers have concluded the present is an illusion, the flow of time a failed generalization, humanity’s experience of memory is really built on statistical phenomena. Acknowledging the gap between relativity and quantum mechanism makes for considerable uncertainty, the author places much faith in future discovery. The heat present in black holes could be a Rosetta stone which would elaborate the combined workings of quantum, gravitational (i.e., relative), and thermodynamic phenomena. There could be a connection between time and heat.
Heidegger, skeptical of the discipline for such conclusions, is loosely castigated. So too German idealism is criticised for holding man as the summit of nature, conscious of itself. Nature is not conscious of humanity’s special status, the author writes. The bien pensant emerges in full cry – nature does not care about the human species, whose life is likely to be short and further curtailed by its own choices.
But where else does one find rationality, not simple probability, save in the deity or perhaps artificial intelligence (which is artificial)? What role does the empiricism of common sense play? Heidegger is onto something; philosophy shouldn’t slavishly copy physics.