Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Theoretical analysis reveals cognitive limits of scientific instrumentation bound by biological interfaces, highlighting fundamental boundaries in empirical inquiry.
本文揭示还原论框架下的“工具悖论”:观测未知实体需依赖工具,而工具的设计又必须预知该实体与工具的耦合属性,形成逻辑死锁。进一步指出,所有工具均为生物器官的物理延伸,人类的认知被封闭在生物学接口的同构域内。科学进步的“无限性”实为依赖基因突变或外部干预的随机博弈。本文建议,在期待解套之前,承认“看不见”本身也是一种客观存在。 作者联系方式:陈宝格,邮箱:chenxian1024@163.com。欢迎学术交流与合作。 This paper reveals the "Tool Paradox" within the reductionist framework: observing an unknown entity requires a tool, yet the tool's design presupposes knowledge of the coupling between the entity and the tool—forming a logical deadlock. It further argues that all tools are physical extensions of biological organs, confining human cognition within a finite isomorphic domain delimited by biological interfaces. The narrative of "unlimited scientific progress" is shown to be a stochastic game dependent on genetic mutation or external intervention. The paper suggests that, before seeking escape routes, we might first acknowledge that "invisibility" itself is a legitimate mode of objective existence. Contact: Chen BaoGe, Email:chenxian1024@163.com. Academic exchanges and collaboration are welcome.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
BaoGe Chen (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: