Does reaching the edge of scientific knowledge naturally invite metaphysical speculation?

In the comments of this post, HH declared that it does not: it invites more research. I agree, it definitely invites more research – but shouldn’t it also cause us to turn around and wonder what it means, this thing we have discovered?

My breath was taken away last year when I read the final paragraph of my physics book, the faithful (if slightly heavy) Giancoli. Having detailed the precise laws governing our world, having explored the weird, tiny world of quantum mechanics, having looked into the awesome cosmos, its incredible hugeness, the wonders of its beginnings, its amazing spectacles – Giancoli turns now towards the science itself in the final paragraph of the book:

One aspect that is especially intriguing is this: calculations on the formation and evolution of the universe have been performed that deliberately varied the values – just slightly – of certain fundamental physical constants. The result? A universe in which life as we know it could not exist. [He cites one example.] Such results have given rise to a philosophical idea called the Anthropic principle, which says that if the universe were even a little different than it is, we could not be here. It might even seem that the universe is exquisitely tuned, almost as if to accommodate us.

Wow! What way to end a physics textbook!

« »