We are including a link to an op-ed piece in the New York Times written by astrophysicists Adam Frank at the University of Rochester and Marcelo Gleiser at Dartmouth College. This article is of interest because it discusses the limits of empirical knowledge in astrophysics. The authors point out the dilemma of modern physics---that current theories like string theory and multiverses seem beyond empirical investigation and therefore challenge the very foundation of what it means to conduct science. Some scientists are willing to consider theories if they are elegant and explanatory enough, even if they aren’t confirmable empirically. In this piece Frank and Gleiser don’t  explicitly takes sides on this controversy; they just point out the dilemma and how much is riding on what scientists find with the recently upgraded Large Hadron Collider.

Since astrophysics is a piece of the big history story, it is of interest to hear this discussion of where the limits of empirical knowledge are in that field. 

This topic is of interest to Big History since Article 2 of the IBHA Articles of Incorporation states that the International Big History Association (IBHA) defines its purpose as “to promote, support and sponsor the diffusion and improvement of the academic and scholarly knowledge of the scientific field of endeavor commonly known as “Big History” by means of teaching and research and to engage in activities related thereto.”

Is still unconfirmed theoretical physics science?  How should it be incorporated into Big History when in most areas we seek to base the field on evidence that is confirmable empirically?

So how should we respond to the Crisis at the Edge of Physics?

I would suggest that the crisis is not at the edge of physics but at the foundation of physics. To illustrate:  

• MATTER: If 95 percent of the known universe is invisible, then an “empirical” big history concerns itself with only with the 5 percent that is visible to the senses. This leaves out the vast majority of the known universe and looks only at the veneer of “matter.” However, there is no single universally agreed scientific meaning of the word “matter.” Upon exploration, matter seems to disappears into fields and strings of energy. There is no hard matter in “matter.” The deeper we explore, the more mysterious matter becomes.

• DARK MATTER & DARK ENERGY: If we turn to the 95 percent of the known universe that is invisible, the mystery deepens further. "Dark matter" is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe. Because it has not been detected directly, it is one of the great mysteries in modern astrophysics. With regard to “dark energy,” we know how much there is because we know it affects the universe’s expansion—other than that, it is a complete mystery.

• TIME: History presumably unfolds over time—but what is the nature of “time”? The view of “time” as a linear progression from past to present to future is now being fundamentally questioned as possibly illusory. Can big history make sense without linear time? Prominent scientists in physics, such as string theory pioneer Ed Witten and theorist Brian Greene, have recently embraced the idea that linear time is illusory. The nature of time is a profound mystery.

• LIFE: The growing complexity of physical systems is generally assumed to provide the basis for“life.” Yet, from the perspective of empirical science, the transition from non-life to life has yet to be explained and remains a complete mystery.

• SELF-ORGANIZING SYSTEMS: A process of “self-assembly” is foundational to thinking in big history but the process whereby some kind of “self” has the knowing or sentient capacity generating self-assembly remains a mystery.

• CONSCIOUSNESS: Experiments in quantum physics have demonstrated the critical role of observation (and therefore “consciousness” or “sentience") in collapsing the wave nature of quantum reality into a discrete and measurable particle form. Yet, the nature of and basis for consciousness remains a mystery to empirical science.

• NON-LOCALITY: Big history assumes that smaller pieces (atoms and molecules) somehow self-assemble into larger systems (such as plants and animals) to produce a world of seemingly separate objects. Yet, empirical science has demonstrated non-locality at the quantum level and the underlying unity of the universe. The connection between unification at the micro-scale and seeming separation at the macro-scale has yet to be explained and remains a deep mystery.

Overall, mystery is compounded by mystery upon mystery. Big history gives the clear impression that it is based on scientific “facts” when the reality is that much of the nature of reality is deeply mysterious. The current, mechanistic paradigm of a universe that is non-living at its foundations is provisional and awaiting deeper insight into the nature of reality.

Karen— I think that the current science and scholarship of big history are extremely important and worthwhile! In no way do I mean to diminish that scholarship. My view is that the paradigm of scientific materialism is provisional as is as the paradigm of living systems (that I apply to my description of big history). We are in a time of great discovery and this calls for openness. As I state in the conclusion of my essay on big history, " It is scientifically valid, critical to our pathway into the future, and enormously enriching to bring a living systems paradigm into big history as a legitimate track of discovery and development.”  This does not deny the importance and role of current science and scholarship but does call for being open to other perspectives that may offer a different sense of cosmic identity, purpose, meaning, consciousness, and ethics as well as a compassionate concern for sustainable ways of living. These are of immeasurable value to humanity as we seek to grow through a time of profound planetary transition and come together to build a promising species-civilization.

It may not be usual to comment on ones own post. I just wish to clarify something. When I talk of scientific empiricism having left mythology, religion and philosophy behind in the context of a narrative around knowledge and fact I do not intend to dismiss them as no longer of relevance to the discussion. If science has reached frontiers in terms of what it can know, we may need to reappraise them as modalities by which we might progress as humans in the context of the cosmic narrative that gave rise to us.

Hi John. I'm not sure what you think I am saying here? I don't think I am arguing the virtues of rationalism over empiricism or vice versa  or anything else for that matter. What I am suggesting is that if we recognise that we are an essential consequence of the cosmic narrative that we undertake to engage through big history then we must ask whether or not the narrative will progress through us and if so, how we might undertake to participate in that progress. In this context, we might question the virtues of any tool that we might use to facilitate our possible progress as essential cosmic phenomena, be it science, philosophy or religion or anything else? This thread began with a discussion of an article which seems to suggest that there is a limit to which we might come to fully "know" the cosmic reality of which we are part. What I am advocating here is the idea that while the concept of knowledge (or anything else for that matter) is a valuable one right now, if we are to progress as phenomena in the context of the cosmic dynamic which has given rise to us, we may reach a point where knowledge will cease to have the importance that it has now. I find the eastern religions interesting in this regard in that they have concepts of wisdom and understanding (and general human progress) that are not necessarily tied to an idea of knowledge. In this regard, human progress could be read as cosmic progress.

You suggest that "the synthesis of rationalism and empiricism is powerful in Physics, Science and Big History". I'm not sure exactly on what grounds you make this claim. The article upon which this thread is based would certainly seem to suggest that empiricism seems to be an increasingly limited tool by which we might relate to the cosmos as a whole. If so, the question arises as to how we might validly operate beyond this limitation?