In the autumn season of October, the announcement of the Nobel Prize once again draws the attention of the global scientific community to explorers who are walking alone on the edge of human cognition. The Physiology or Medicine Prize is awarded to insightful individuals who reveal the secrets of the body's immune system, the Physics Prize is awarded to trackers who capture the ghosts of the quantum world in macroscopic circuits, and the Chemistry Prize is awarded to constructors who bring a revolution to materials science. When should science be crowned? The attribution of the Physiology or Medicine Award and the Chemistry Award is a solemn confirmation of the mature paradigm - the former's "identity code" has already been written into textbooks, while the latter has profoundly changed the face of materials chemistry. This is also in line with people's expectations: Nobel Prizes usually favor those 'proven changes'. The awarding of the Physics Prize presents a different atmosphere. The groundbreaking work of three scientists has broken the traditional understanding that quantum behavior is limited to the microscale and opened up a path for a new generation of quantum technology. An unavoidable fact here is that although "quantum superiority" has been demonstrated in specific tasks, the truly error correcting and practical problem-solving general-purpose quantum computer is still far away in the deep waters of engineering, with obstacles such as noise, decoherence, and scalability. As Chinese scholars have analyzed and pointed out, the awarding of this Physics Prize can be seen as an "early recognition" - it rewards not only past glory, but also a firm belief in the future; It pays tribute not only to the persistent pursuit of past pioneers, but also to the encouragement and expectations for changing the difficulties of the real world. The Nobel Committee, citing "the cornerstone of all digital technologies," is actually turning the award into a lighthouse - it not only illuminates the path we have walked, but also guides the voyage that has not yet been opened up. This is precisely the most touching tension of the scientific spirit: rigorous scientific research sometimes requires bold foresight. The essence of basic research is to throw a beam of light into the unknown. Early recognition is like 'the moon rises with the tide'. If recognition is only given when the technology is mature and the industry is implemented, then praise the moon only after the tide recedes. Before the birth of scientific breakthroughs, the road ahead was long, and the Nobel Prize cast a vote of trust at this time, not only as an honor, but also as a strategic resource mobilization - it can gather global intelligence, attract capital injection, and inspire the younger generation to devote themselves to this yet to be victorious expedition. On the road of technological development in our country, the support for the leap is mostly the "engineering innovation" with clear goals and clear paths. In those primitive innovation fields that go from 0 to 1, we need to persist in cultivating a deeper scientific culture, that is, defending the freedom of exploration, fault-tolerant space, and long-term persistence required for primitive innovation. A mature scientific research evaluation system should not only reward visible achievements, but also provide more stable soil for projects that have not been heard for ten years. Science not only needs to cultivate in certainty, but also needs to sow in uncertainty. The courage to 'acknowledge in advance' is essentially a trust in human curiosity and exploratory spirit, lighting a watchful lamp for those who are still groping for the spark in the darkness. This lamp not only illuminates the future of science, but also reflects our open mindedness towards the unknown. (New Society)