Text 524, 112 rader
Skriven 2004-10-26 06:01:00 av Michael Ragland (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Time without end: Phy
=================================



Michael Ragland wrote: 
P.S. I thought I was alone in my belief intelligent life could modify
the physical laws of the universe for its own purposes. Many may
strongly disagree with Freeman Dyson but I don't think anybody would
justifiably consider him a crackpot. 


I don't understand this comment. Maybe I missed something skimming
through Dyson's article, but at the beginning he says "Two assumptions
underlie the discussion. (1) The laws of physics do not change with
time. (2) The relevant laws of physics are already known to us." To me,
that seems inconsistent with life modifying the laws. 
-- 
Maurice Barnhill
mvb@udel.edu [Use ReplyTo, not From] 
[bellatlantic.net is reserved for spam only] Department of Physics and
Astronomy 
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

Michael Ragland:
Yeah, you have to basically read the whole thing through in context. I
didn't understand the equations so I skipped those but I already knew
from a comment by Hawking (which he appeared to agree with
theoretically) regarding Dyson's theory that life in infinite in the
universe.

One part of the article by Dyson states, "Weinberg has here, perhaps
unintentionally, identified a real problem. It is impossible to
calculate in detail the long-range future of the universe without
including the effects of life and intelligence. It is impossible to
calculate the capabilities of life and intelligence without touching, at
least peripherally, philosophical questions. If we are to examine how
intelligent life may be able to guide the physical development of the
universe for its own purposes, we cannot altogether avoid considering
what the values and purposes of intelligent life may be. But as soon as
we mention the words value and purpose, we run into one of the most
firmly entrenched taboos of twentieth-century science. Hear the voice of
Jacques Monod (1970), high priest of scientific rationality, in his book
_Chance and Necessity_: 

"Any mingling of knowledge with values is unlawful, forbidden." 
Monod was one of the seminal minds in the flowering of molecular biology
in this century. It takes some courage to defy his anathema. But I will
defy him, and encourage others to do so. The taboo against mixing
knowledge with values arose during the nineteenth century out of the
great battle between the evolutionary biologists led by Thomas Huxley
and the churchmen led by Bishop Wilberforce. Huxley won the battle, but
a hundred years later Monod and Weinberg were still fighting Bishop
Wilberforce's ghost. Physicists today have no reason to be afraid of
Wilberforce's ghost. If our analysis of the long-range future leads us
to raise questions related to the ultimate meaning and purpose of life,
then let us examine these questions boldly and without embarrassment. If
our answers to these questions are naive and preliminary, so much the
better for the continued vitality of our science. 

I propose in these lectures to explore the future as Weinberg in his
book explored the past. My arguments will be rough and simple but always
quantitative. The aim is to establish numerical bounds within which the
destiny of the universe must lie. I shall make no further apology for
mixing philosophical speculations with mathematical equations."



Here's Dyson's conclusion in his paper:

"In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that I have not given any
definitive proof of my statement that communication of an infinite
quantity of information at a finite cost in energy is possible. To give
a definitive proof, I would have to design in detail a transmitter and a
receiver and demonstrate that they can do what I claim. I have not even
tried to design the hardware for my communications system. All I have
done is to show that a system performing according to my specifications
is not in obvious contradiction with the known laws of physics and
information theory. 

The universe that I have explored in a preliminary way in these lectures
is very different from the universe which Steven Weinberg had in mind
when he said, "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it
also seems pointless." I have found a universe growing without limit in
richness and complexity, a universe of life surviving forever and making
itself known to its neighbors across unimaginable gulfs of space and
time. Is Weinberg's universe or mine closer to the truth? 
One day, before long, we should know. 
Whether the details of my calculations turn out to be correct or not, I
think I have shown that there are good scientific reasons for taking
seriously the possibility that life and intelligence can succeed in
molding this universe of ours to their own purposes. As Haldane (1924)
the biologist wrote fifty years ago, "The human intellect is feeble, and
there are times when it does not assert the infinity of its claims. But
even then: 
        Though in black jest it bows and nods, 
        I know it is roaring at the gods, 
        Waiting the last eclipse."

If you want to take a crack at Dyson's calculations go ahead but I won't
be able to answer because I'm not a physicist. 

"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value.
Bacteria do quite well without it."

Stephen Hawking
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/26/04 6:01:34 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)