12/20/2024
1. Why M-Theory Constitutes Revised-Normal Science
Before discussing Revised-Normal Science, we must first understand what Normal Science and Post-Normal Science are. Normal Science, as defined by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, refers to scientific work conducted within an accepted paradigm, producing results consistent with that framework. Traditional physics, chemistry, and biology are representative examples.
Post-Normal Science, a concept proposed by Jerome Ravetz in Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems, addresses scientific uncertainty as something to be managed probabilistically. Climate science, epidemiology, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing fall into this category. However, post-normal science does not reject the scientific methodologies of normal science.
Similarly, Revised-Normal Science does not reject the methods of post-normal science; rather, it seeks to construct an even more robust paradigm—one centered on M-Theory. In this framework, M-Theory does not deny being validated through the probabilistic monitoring methods of computational systems. As noted in a previous discussion, this will be explored further in the next piece, Infinity and Mathematics: Indirect Proof of M-Theory.
2. Why M-Theory Constitutes Neo-Reductionism
Reductionism, rooted in the thought of René Descartes, holds that complex concepts can be fully explained in terms of more fundamental ones: physics by mathematics, chemistry by physics, biology by chemistry, psychology by biology, and sociology by psychology.
M-Theory aligns with this tradition insofar as it describes physics mathematically and explains the fundamental principles of the universe through mathematics. Yet it diverges by advocating not a universal reduction of all sciences, but a grand unification of mathematics and physics. For this reason, I classify M-Theory as a form of Neo-Reductionism—a new reductionism centered exclusively on the mathematical–physical unification.
3. Why M-Theory Represents the Second Hilbert’s Program
The original Hilbert’s Program, proposed by David Hilbert, was a project to establish the completeness and consistency of mathematics. It was challenged by Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem, which demonstrated that a system’s axioms cannot be proven from within the system itself. Nonetheless, Hilbert’s Program sought to reaffirm mathematics through formalism.
M-Theory can be regarded as a Second Hilbert’s Program: by explaining physics through mathematics, it revitalizes physics while simultaneously reaffirming the stability and completeness of mathematics, grounding mathematical certainty once again in the physical world.
4. Can M-Theory Coexist with Existing Natural Sciences (Normal Science & Post-Normal Science)?
Yes. Due to its feature of emergence, M-Theory—describing the early universe—does not invalidate the operational principles of established physics, chemistry, and biology. This aligns with the constructive approach of Constructivism, which rejects strict reductionism, while also advancing toward a new form of reductionism—Neo-Reductionism.
Therefore, Neo-Reductionism should not be seen as antagonistic to either Reductionism or Constructivism; rather, it incorporates their strengths while moving beyond their limitations.
5. Why the Second String Revolution Stalled
It may be unfair to call it a failure, but since the Second String Revolution led by Edward Witten in 1995, M-Theory has largely plateaued. This is partly due to its profound mathematical complexity and the extreme difficulty of experimental verification. However, I believe the deeper reason is a lack of philosophical impetus to drive the theory forward.
The frameworks of Revised-Normal Science, Neo-Reductionism, and the Second Hilbert’s Program together provide the ideological foundation necessary for continued research on M-Theory. For me, fulfilling my duty as a cosmic being means sharing this vision with as many people as possible, ensuring that M-Theory retains both scientific and philosophical momentum.
댓글 남기기