Meaning: The quote "But even physics cannot be defined from an atomic topography" by Michael Polanyi, a renowned scientist and philosopher, raises profound questions about the nature of physics and the limitations of reductionist approaches in understanding the physical world. In this quote, Polanyi challenges the notion that physics, the fundamental science that seeks to understand the behavior of matter and energy, can be fully explained solely through the analysis of atomic structures and their interactions.

Michael Polanyi was a polymath whose work spanned multiple disciplines, including physical chemistry, economics, and philosophy. Born in Hungary in 1891, he made significant contributions to the understanding of scientific knowledge and the nature of scientific inquiry. His ideas have had a lasting impact on the philosophy of science and the way we think about the complex relationships between scientific theories, empirical evidence, and the tacit knowledge that underlies scientific practice.

The quote reflects Polanyi's broader philosophical stance, which emphasizes the importance of personal knowledge and tacit understanding in scientific inquiry. In his influential book "Personal Knowledge," Polanyi argued that scientific knowledge is deeply rooted in the personal experiences and intuitive judgments of individual scientists. He contended that the process of scientific discovery involves a complex interplay between explicit, formal knowledge and the unarticulated, intuitive insights that guide researchers in their exploration of the natural world.

When Polanyi states that "even physics cannot be defined from an atomic topography," he is challenging the reductionist view that all natural phenomena can be ultimately explained in terms of the behavior of atoms and subatomic particles. This reductionist approach, which has been highly successful in many areas of physics and chemistry, holds that the properties and behaviors of macroscopic objects can be fully understood by analyzing the interactions of their constituent particles at the atomic level.

However, Polanyi's quote suggests that there are intrinsic limitations to this reductionist approach, particularly when it comes to the foundational principles of physics. While atomic and subatomic structures provide a crucial framework for understanding the behavior of matter and energy, they may not fully capture the complexities of physical phenomena at larger scales or the emergent properties that arise from the interactions of multiple particles and systems.

Polanyi's perspective aligns with a broader philosophical debate about the nature of scientific explanation and the relationship between different levels of scientific inquiry. Some philosophers and scientists argue that reductionism provides a powerful framework for understanding the natural world, enabling researchers to uncover the fundamental laws and principles that govern physical reality. Others, like Polanyi, emphasize the importance of considering higher-level properties, patterns, and organizational principles that may not be reducible to the behavior of individual particles.

In the context of modern physics, the quote "But even physics cannot be defined from an atomic topography" prompts reflection on the ongoing quest to develop a unified theory of physics that can reconcile the principles of quantum mechanics and general relativity. These foundational theories of the microscopic and macroscopic realms, respectively, have proven immensely successful in describing the behavior of particles and the dynamics of space-time. Yet, the quest for a unified theory that can encompass both domains has encountered significant challenges, leading some physicists to reconsider the underlying assumptions of reductionism and explore alternative frameworks for understanding the nature of physical reality.

In conclusion, Michael Polanyi's quote challenges us to consider the limitations of reductionist approaches in defining the scope and principles of physics. By highlighting the complexities and emergent properties that may transcend atomic topographies, the quote encourages us to think deeply about the nature of scientific knowledge and the ways in which our understanding of the physical world is shaped by both explicit, formal theories and the tacit, intuitive insights of individual scientists. It prompts us to engage in a nuanced exploration of the relationships between different levels of scientific inquiry and to consider the philosophical implications of our quest to comprehend the fundamental principles of physics.