Intuition and modern science
Hello Rabbi Michael,
I recently read your book ‘True and Unstable.’ I enjoyed reading it and it gave me a lot to think about. Thank you very much.
You argue in the book that our tool for deciding what is truth is intuition. A combination of thinking and cognition. Looking with the ‘eyes of reason’ at the ideas or concepts behind things and comparing them to find out what is true and what is the truth (even if it is uncertain).
A question arose in my mind about this: From the little I understand about quantum theory, Einstein’s theory of relativity, and other modern theories, they are very counterintuitive. The theories are hard to grasp (probability in the location of the electron, wave-particle duality, time depending on the system you are in, etc.), it is hard to understand why things work the way they do, and without a lot of experiments with unambiguous results and a lot of scientists supporting these theories, we probably wouldn’t believe in them (unlike Newtonian mechanics, which from what I know seems pretty intuitive and logical to me).
Now, assuming that you do believe in these theories and also understand them well as a physicist,
Doesn’t this raise a question about the use of intuition as a tool for knowing reality?
For example, it can be said that if intuitions do not work at the micro level of matter (quantums) or at very high speeds – and therefore must rely on clear experiments – perhaps they also will not work regarding the creation of the world or anything that is very far from the reality in which we live.
Does our intuition work in things we don’t really know?
Thank you very much 🙂
Intuition doesn’t work in a vacuum. Could you ask a similar question about Occam’s razor, which tells us to choose the simplest theory. And is quantum theory or relativity the simplest? Clearly, the razor doesn’t work in a vacuum. Within the constraints of facts and observations, among the theories that explain them, we choose the simplest. The same goes for intuition. Intuition doesn’t mean that I owe myself what seems most logical to me. I have to gather all the relevant facts and in light of them ask what the most likely explanation is that will explain the facts. The fact that Newtonian mechanics is simpler and more intuitive doesn’t help me, because his mechanics doesn’t explain the facts. Of the theories that explain the facts that we know, quantum theory and relativity are the most intuitive.
Forgive me for “bringing up” the post…
What do you mean then “quantum theory and relativity are the most intuitive”? Actually, according to what you explain, they are simply the only ones that explain the phenomena with the highest success rates – right?
Read again
I read again: “Quantum theory and relativity are the most intuitive” = they explain the facts I have collected in the most reasonable way.
Now I ask (as someone who has finished reading “True and Unstable” and is still trying to get to the bottom of the ideas) – How does this manifest itself in a practical way? After all, as you said yourself, Newton's explanations do not explain the facts and therefore we do not choose him – That is, this is the criterion! Where is the reasonableness here? The intuition?
When I think about all the phenomena that led to the understanding that there is a force of gravity, for example – I want to say that the explanation of the force of gravity is the only one (and not the most reasonable) that can explain them!
I assume I am missing important points here that you probably explained but I simply cannot nail them down.
None of these are the only explanations. Recall the example of the graph and the various connections of the points on it. This is exactly the answer to your question.
Instead of the law of gravity, there could be an infinite number of other explanations: Every body with a geometric shape is attracted to its neighbor. Every body with a color. Every odd minute has one attraction and every even minute has another. Every data set has an infinite number of possible explanations. You are referring directly to the simple and therefore it seems to you the only one.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
