A superficial view of things is the shortest path to making erroneous decisions about them. The more often we switch to “economy mode” when assessing the world around us, the higher the likelihood that we produce a series of blunders.
Let’s take the well-known concept of the “arrow of time” as an example. It has become so popular that it is used not only by physicists but also by psycho-philosophers.
In physics, it is defined by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to it, the measure of chaos (entropy) in a closed system always increases. An example used is a broken cup that “never” spontaneously reassembles itself – this is the movement of the arrow of time.
From physics, it moved into cosmology, where it became associated with the expansion of the universe. Therefore, it is asserted here that time moves in the same direction in which the universe becomes larger after the Big Bang.
Philosophers could not resist such an attractive metaphor, so they use it in two cases: “the cause always precedes the effect” and “we remember the past, but we do not remember the future.” The latter is indisputable because “to remember” is by definition “to read the traces of the past in the present.”
However, other uses of the “arrow of time” range from incorrect to wrong. I will prove this now.
The term “arrow of time” was first proposed by the eminent British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington. This happened in 1927 during his lectures at the University of Edinburgh, which later formed the basis of his famous book “The Nature of the Physical World” (1928). He decided not to delve into the intricacies of the second law of thermodynamics and also to explain it to people far from understanding that very nature of the physical world.
However, this question in a physical sense had interested the young natural science since the 18th century. Physicists were eager to explain the operation of the heat engine. Historians of science said it was due to the needs of society or the desire to make money on improved steam engines, but this is not true. A scientist drives himself with only two incentives – an uncontrollable desire to learn something new and the pain of being unable to explain it. Anyone who talks about “social good” or “commercial interest” is not a scientist but just another hypocritical moneymaker. Scientists were actually interested in this question: when warm and cold objects touch, does heat or cold move to the neighbor?
By the end of the 19th century, the answer was obvious to those who delved deeply into this topic. Ludwig Boltzmann provided it. However, this answer did not please the hard-headed “Aryan physicists” who lived by the principle “measure and do not think.” “Measure and do not think” is another form of superficial perception of the world within the framework of nth positivism. When Boltzmann’s thinking collided with the non-thinking of contemporary physics, it all ended tragically. He was attacked by Ernst Mach and Wilhelm Ostwald. The latter, incidentally, later became a Nobel laureate in chemistry (1909). Later, he delved into his energetic nonsense, but at the time, he was still quite influential. Mach and Ostwald pressured Boltzmann for his formulation of the second law of thermodynamics, which led him to suicide. The scientific and educational environment is a hotbed of hypertrophied bullying. Boltzmann hanged himself using the curtains in a hotel room, while Mach and Ostwald continued to bask in the glory and receive awards, even though it turned out that they were absolutely wrong. What is the essence of Boltzmann’s interpretation?
Let’s simplify the situation with a cup to the extreme. We know there is a certain configuration of its molecules where it remains whole, and many other configurations where it is broken. Let’s say there are six states, like the sides of a die. So, if it lands on one, the cup is intact, otherwise, it is broken. If you believe Arthur Eddington and those who follow him without thinking, the one will never roll. But that’s not true. Its chances are small, 1/6, but not zero. Yes, there are more molecules in a cup than faces on a die, which move randomly at temperatures above -273.15 degrees. In a standard coffee cup, there are 467,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules constantly jostling around. Therefore, the chances that a cup with cracks 0.16 nm wide will become whole again is 0.000000000000000000000003568879371877231. And each time the pieces separate another 0.16 nm, you add 37 zeros after the comma. However, no matter how far the pieces of this cup disperse, the probability that it will spontaneously become whole again will never be zero.
The “arrow of time” is not absolute, but probabilistic. However, science considers events that occur with high probability to be regularities. That’s why, to find a new regularity, a scientist needs to observe something repeating under certain conditions. And to avoid the temptation of fabricating, other scientists must confirm these observations. This applies not only to physics or natural sciences.
The division into humanitarians and natural scientists is complete nonsense. There is scientific cognition of the world and something else entirely. For example, we only know about the snake-bitten Oleg the Wise from one source. There are no repetitions, so whether he existed or was invented is unknown. For historical science, he is a “legendary prince” rather than a real historical figure. Mentions of Prince Igor are found in European, Byzantine, and Arabic sources. This is repetition, so the probability that he was a real historical figure is higher—which is already scientific knowledge.
Another example. If I see an interesting combination of plants in a certain place, I do not have the right to immediately name this plant community, attaching my surname and the date of my insight at the end. First, I need to describe a dozen such combinations and publish their descriptions in a peer-reviewed journal. Then, a couple of other people need to confirm this with their research. Only then will the geobotany and phytocenology experts gather at a Congress, compare everything with the database, and approve or disapprove my naming of the discovery.
Unfortunately, our lives are dominated by superficiality and anti-scientific attitudes. We ignore likely consequences, repeat experiences, and believe in miracles. We play our lives haphazardly, hoping for the miracle that at the end of the game, four aces will appear in our hands. We choose immoral, incompetent fools, give them absolute power, and believe nothing bad will happen to us. Then we sit with the arrow of time in the distal end of the digestive system, look at the broken cup of fate, and ask passersby—what could have gone wrong?..
