Given (mostly) the same species, in which case would science advance more?

[Kyriakos]

It is about hypothetical different environments for the human species, and if those might or not lead to more science-favorable mindsets.

Currently we at least sense the world as vast compared to any human. Even our planet alone is gigantic next to humans.
What if our environment was really small, such as a building, and there was (due to one physical law or other) no way to exit it?

Would being confined by natural laws in a smallish space be leading to more pre-occupation with examining science? Obviously we would also be studying laws that were creating such a small environment in the first place. So it should be expected that those hypothetical laws would not have to be compatible with the ones now picked up by our point of view in the world we actually live in.

*

I think that the human species (ie a variation of it, in that hypothetical) would possibly be more creative and rigorous as a whole, in examining 'reality' in the case that it was bounded as such. I am not sure if that would happen if that species had to evolve from prehistory in such an environment, but am thinking of our current species hypothetically moved to such a space and then forgetting the move in time.

In vast spaces the sense of purpose likely tends to diminish. If one can achieve something in a myriad different ways, then it almost does not matter how he goes about it. Also if one can do the 'same' thing pretty much by taking myriads of different paths, then the identity of his achievement again may appear vague, if not primarily just an idea in his mind.
Compare that to the goal one has in a computer game, where specific steps lead to some key alteration to the game world, allowing you to go further. In essence this is a progression of identifying parameters of note in a set world. While in the vastness of the human-sensed cosmos this is apparently more than just multi-faceted and subjective.

 

[Lohrenswald]

I don't see why large areas would diminish creativity and sense of purpose.

And it depends what sort of small environment you're thinking about. Like if it's a bunker underground, they can't examine outer space, for example.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

It is about hypothetical different environments for the human species, and if those might or not lead to more science-favorable mindsets.

You can differentiate how an environment(among other things) has influenced human civilizations even in the frame of our single planet. It would be also interesting to look into why from all the terrestrial creatures humans are the single organism capable of culture and science. While at the same time it seems that some animals can posses aspects of mental capacity which is far superior to that of most humans. From marine animals its perhaps the dolphins with their natural sagacity and sepia who really stand out.


Link to video.

Currently we at least sense the world as vast compared to any human. Even our planet alone is gigantic next to humans.
What if our environment was really small, such as a building, and there was (due to one physical law or other) no way to exit it?

Would being confined by natural laws in a smallish space be leading to more pre-occupation with examining science? Obviously we would also be studying laws that were creating such a small environment in the first place. So it should be expected that those hypothetical laws would not have to be compatible with the ones now picked up by our point of view in the world we actually live in.

Space (or lack of it) may have also strong influence on the physical size of organism and in case of humans also the psychology. I think what is really important is how challenging the environment is which of course includes challenges connected with distance and size of the living territory.