[Austrian] Erwin Schrödinger: “Nature and Ancient Greece”

[Austrian] Erwin Schrödinger: *Nature and Ancient Greece*, translated by Yan Feng, Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers, May 2002

(Translator’s Preface) p. 3
Although Schrödinger loved mathematics and physics in middle school, he did not reject the liberal arts; he did very well in both Greek and Latin, and also taught himself French and English. Later, he read and wrote the four modern languages of English, French, Italian, and Spanish just as well as Greek and Latin. He once translated Homer’s epic poems into English, and translated French poetry into German. He also published a personal poetry collection in 1949. He loved drawing and sculpture, and had a special passion for drama. Moreover, he loved nature, enjoyed sports, and liked hiking and mountaineering. Ever since his student days, he had read ancient Greek philosophy. This preference accompanied him throughout his life. ////——This image of a scientist is astonishing, especially in modern China, where it is simply unimaginable (when Chinese people mention scientists, they seem more likely to think of Chen Jingrun). Yet this is precisely what a true scientist ought to look like in an ideal form—not merely a scientific “expert,” but also a giant of thought.

Nature and Ancient Greece

p. 16
Of course, things are usually not like this: in the face of the ever-changing multiplicity of everyday life, if you receive a good, comprehensive scientific education, then you will entirely eliminate your innate longing for the consolation of religion or philosophy and feel immensely happy. What often happens is that science is enough to throw the religious beliefs of the masses into crisis, without replacing those beliefs with anything else. This gives rise to the absurd phenomenon whereby minds that have received good scientific training and possess strong powers of thought nonetheless hold incredibly naive and stunted philosophical views.

p. 17
Personal suffering, shattered hopes, disasters looming over humanity, distrust of the majesty and honesty of the world’s laws—all of these easily make a person long for even a vague hope, whether or not it can be strictly verified. That hope is to place the “world” or “life” as experienced into a realm of higher meaning, even if it is still unpredictable at present. But between the paths of the mind and of reason there still stands a wall. Let us reflect along this wall: will it always exist? Can we knock it down? When we survey its winding twists and turns in the mountain valleys of history, we see a land from two thousand years ago in the far distance. There, such a wall was pushed down and disappeared, and there was only one path, no longer divided. Some of us think it worthwhile to walk back and see what can be learned from that enchanting unity of antiquity.
Setting aside this metaphor, my view is this: ancient Greek philosophy can still attract us today because, before and after it, nowhere in the world did there arise a system of knowledge and thought as highly developed and as clearly articulated as theirs. Such a system had no fatal split. But over the centuries, the divisions within our own systems of thought have hindered us, and by now we can scarcely endure them. ////——Whatever the reason may be, what Schrödinger is trying to show is this: for science today, ancient Greek philosophy has significance not merely as a matter of historical inquiry, but also as a profound source of inspiration regarding “the crisis of basic science at present.”

p. 33
Skepticism is cheap and barren. What matters, and what is fruitful, is the skepticism of someone who is closer to the truth than his predecessors and clearly recognizes the limitations of his intellectual constructions. Such skepticism merely multiplies the value of a discovery; it does not diminish it. ////——The skeptical spirit is crucial for science, but one cannot say that skeptical spirit is the same as scientific spirit; skepticism must meet certain conditions before it can become science.

p. 53
…Of course the Babylonians and Egyptians knew many regularities concerning the orbits of celestial bodies, especially the regularities of solar and lunar eclipses. But they treated these as religious secrets rather than seeking natural explanations. Thus, naturally, they were utterly unable to conceive of a comprehensive potential for the world in terms of regularity. ////——Schrödinger points out two important features of ancient Greek natural philosophy: first, the belief that the world is knowable and can ultimately be understood (p. 82); second, the use of a perspective that places the subject in the detached position of an observer and thereby “objectifies” the world (p. 84). Both are necessary for the establishment of science. Neither Babylon, Egypt, India, nor China, even if they had possessed a more detailed and accurate knowledge of natural regularities and more advanced and complex technologies, can be said to have produced “science,” and this is the reason.

Science and Humanism

p. 96
What is the value of natural science? I would answer: its sphere of influence, its aims, and its value are just as important as those of the other branches of human knowledge. More than that, it only makes sense to discuss its scope or value in relation to the unified whole composed of all these branches, not any single branch in isolation.

pp. 96–97
I was born into such a situation—not knowing where I came from or where I am going, nor even knowing who I am. This is my situation, and yours too, and everyone’s. Every person is in such a situation, and always will be. This reality cannot give me any answers. We eagerly want to know where we came from and where we are going, but the only thing observable is the environment we are in. That is why we strive so urgently and with all our might to seek answers. It is this that gives rise to science, scholarship, and knowledge; it is the true source of all spiritual pursuits within us.

p. 99
We are not aiming to abolish specialization altogether, even if we wished to do so, which would be impossible. However, people have come to realize that specialization is not a virtue but an unavoidable drawback, and that all specialized research is valuable only when placed within the complete system of knowledge. These are all advances being achieved. Someone who dares to think, speak, or even write about a new subject with knowledge beyond his own specialty was once dismissed as a “jack of all trades and master of none”; now such denunciations are growing ever weaker. ////——Are they really growing ever weaker? At least in China today, things do not seem quite so optimistic yet.

p. 100
One should keenly observe the role your particular specialty plays on the stage of the tragicomedy of human life; one should connect it to life—not only to practical life, but also to the ideal background of life, which is usually even more important. At the same time, one must keep pace with the times. If you cannot ultimately tell others what you have been doing all along, then your research is worth nothing. ////——The subtitle of this lecture on “Science and Humanism” is “Dedicated to the colleagues with whom I have worked for 30 years.” The master’s admonition to his peers is full of earnest concern.

p. 101
As everyone knows, although some countries actually do a little better, the neglect of science education is severe in every country. Unfortunately, this situation has been passed down from generation to generation. Among educated people, the majority are not interested in science, nor do they know that scientific knowledge is part of forming the ideal background of human life. In complete ignorance of what “science” actually is, many people think that the task of science is to discover new machines, or to help people invent new machines, so as to improve our living conditions. They would leave such matters to experts, just as they would let a plumber fix their pipes. If people holding such views were allowed to choose the courses our children study, the result would inevitably be just as I have described.

p. 145
The final conclusion is that quantum physics has nothing whatever to do with the problem of free will. If there is such a problem as free will, then the latest developments in physics will not provide the slightest assistance. Let me cite Cassirer again: “Thus it is entirely clear … that any possible change in the concept of physical causality will have no direct influence on ethics or morality.” ////——In most of “Science and Humanism,” Schrödinger discusses quantum physics and his views on it. Schrödinger, like Einstein and de Broglie, was one of the principal opponents of the Copenhagen interpretation; the dispute over realism in quantum mechanics was a great one. No matter which side ultimately prevailed, it must never be said that the losing side simply stubbornly defended the “old view,” resisted new theory, and resisted truth, and so on—though that is the way traditional historical accounts of science often frame things. Whether Einstein, Schrödinger, Bohr, or Heisenberg, they were all the greatest scientists and philosophers of that era; their dispute was not a struggle between conservatism and progress, much less a struggle between truth and falsehood, but rather a friendly and grandly intense debate within science itself, including metaphysics.          
So, what exactly is the effect of quantum physics on the question of “free will,” if any? First, Schrödinger is right: one cannot simply oppose quantum physics to the “uncertainty” of classical mechanical determinism and treat that uncertainty as a “savior” of “free will.” In fact, being wholly subject to chance is not much better than being wholly subject to necessity; under the latter, one can at least be sure that one’s control over one’s own thoughts and body is reliable, whereas when everything becomes probability, free will seems to find even less reliable support! It is still a matter of yielding to the pull of nature; whether that pull has a definite direction or whether it decides by dice where to drag you, the latter does not seem any more comforting. However, even if one says that quantum physics “will have no direct influence on ethics or morality,” perhaps its “indirect” influence cannot be ignored. Take Darwin’s theory of evolution, for example: it concerns events from trillions of years ago, and in principle has no effect on people’s actual lives; yet no one would deny its tremendous impact on ethics and morality. The transformation in worldview brought by quantum mechanics will, even if not directly, certainly have indirect effects on human thought and culture, and these effects are not yet obvious today.

February 19, 2006

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.